Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Digital Television

Norman Baker: If she will make a statement on access to digital television.

Kim Howells: I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for North Devon (Nick Harvey) have been informed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not able to be in the Chamber today.
	Figures provided by the broadcasters and the Independent Television Commission indicate that there are now between 9.6 million and 9.9 million UK households with access to digital television. We continue to work with stakeholders towards meeting the two primary objectives set out in the digital television action plan: to make the UK the leader in digital television in the G7 and to achieve the criteria that will allow us to complete digital switchover.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister, but what does he say to my constituents who can receive neither digital terrestrial television, and hence the BBC's new services, nor access cable? They want to know why they have to pay twice, first through the licence fee for services that they cannot get, and secondly through Sky to access services that the rest of us get for nothing. What will the Minister do to ensure that the BBC rolls out services to those who do not have them before embarking on new provision?

Kim Howells: There are two parts to that question. The hon. Gentleman asks me what I would say to his constituents. I would say exactly the same thing as I say to my constituents who also cannot get digital terrestrial signals: it will come. We are working with all broadcasters, including the BBC, to ensure that we achieve more than 80 per cent. coverage. Coverage for all six multiplexes is about 73 per cent., but by concentrating on the 80 main transmitters, we hope to increase coverage to 80 per cent. across the country; then, we will work on those areas whose topography makes them more difficult. I am confident that we will get there, and sooner than people have predicted.

Chris Bryant: Much as I hate to agree with a Liberal Democrat, there is a sense in many constituencies that the slowness of the BBC and Crown Castle's roll-out of digital terrestrial television is a problem. The Minister's constituency might fall within the 80 per cent. coverage, but I suspect that Rhondda does not, and my constituents would like to know when the Government hope they will get digital terrestrial television.
	Another problem is that BBC 3 and BBC 4 are available only in digital form and cable television is still analogue in many parts of the country. Will the Minister permit the BBC to provide analogue BBC 3 and BBC 4?

Kim Howells: I cannot envisage that happening, as my hon. Friend well knows. However, at least four wards in my constituency—which I suppose are classified as Rhondda wards, despite the fact that my hon. Friend's constituency covers only the northern part of the area—are similarly affected, and we, too, have a lot of steep hillsides. I am absolutely confident that at the point of switchover our constituents will not receive a service that is in any way worse than in any other part of the country. We shall certainly discuss the services he mentioned with the BBC.

Nick Harvey: Does the Minister agree that until all homes have ready access to digital TV, many people's best chance to see digital TV sports coverage is in their local pub? Can he explain why a pub can entertain people with a large digital television set showing a pop concert, whereas, under his Licensing Bill, if it wants to offer small-scale live music, a licence will be required? Does he understand the anxiety felt by many people, including the readers of the Western Morning News, which is running a campaign on the issue, that the measure will imperil live music in pubs?

Kim Howells: That is the most ingenious question that I have heard in three weeks.

David Cairns: Does my hon. Friend agree with me and our hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, that access to digital television is central to the Government's stated aim ofe-delivery of Government services, and that my constituents, most of whom do not have a computer but almost all of whom have a television, are in grave danger of being left behind in the e-revolution? What message can I take to my constituents in Wemyss Bay and Inverkip, some of whom cannot even get Channel Five—although I have told them that they are not missing much—to persuade them that the Government take the matter seriously? Do the Govt acknowledge that the issue is not merely better television services, but the future of e-delivery of Government services?

Kim Howells: The Government take e-delivery of Government services very seriously. Our work to get libraries and schools on stream is acknowledged everywhere as groundbreaking and revolutionary, and I am confident that there will be no deficit in terms of communities' access to the internet. My hon. Friend is right to speak of television as a means of accessing the internet. I am sure that he knows about the large amount of work being done by many companies at technical level to make the interactive element of television much more sophisticated and faster than it is now. I am confident that soon we will take great strides in that respect.

Digital Television

Derek Wyatt: When she will announce the date for analogue switch-off.

Kim Howells: The criteria set for switchover are as follows: everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels in analogue form must be able to receive them on digital systems; switching to digital is an affordable option for the vast majority of people; and as a target indicator of affordability,95 per cent. of consumers must have access to digital equipment. The objective of the digital television action plan is to ensure these criteria are met so that we can, if we choose, take the decision to proceed to full switchover by ordering the switching off by 2010 of analogue terrestrial transmissions.

Derek Wyatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that rather difficult reply, given that he said earlier that 80 per cent. of consumers would receive digital terrestrial, but 95 per cent. must get digital television. Surely there is some mistake there. We said five years ago that switch-off would be between 2006 and 2010. People buy a new television set every eight years, on average. If we are to plan switch-off now, that means 2011 at the earliest. It is important that we keep a digital smart economy ahead of the rest of Europe and of America. Can my hon. Friend be more explicit about when he expects the switch-off to take place?

Kim Howells: I am sure that my hon. Friend, who I know is very interested in these matters, knows the difference between digital terrestrial signals and signals that can come via satellite or cable. There is a difference. That is where the 15 per cent. of which he spoke is made up.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that even though people are buying sets that are designed to receive analogue transmission, most of them can also be used with set-top box receivers, which enable digital signals to be used by analogue sets. I am sure that even my hon. Friend would admit that the 500,000 free-view systems that have been sold in the past four and a half months are a sign that there is a real appetite on the part of the public and that we shall meet the targets sooner than has been predicted.

Regional Theatres

Alan Whitehead: What action she is taking to support regional theatres.

Richard Caborn: As a result of the theatre review, Arts Council England invested an additional £12 million in theatre throughout England, in 2002–03. From April this year, it will increase to £25 million. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that an example is the Nuffield in Southampton, which has been allocated an increase in funding of about 38 per cent., or in monetary terms, £144,000.

Alan Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome news, especially about the funding for the Nuffield theatre, which is 350 yd from my house. Does he acknowledge the strong support that many progressive local authorities provide for the development and retention of regional theatres, and particularly Southampton city council's support for a new home for the Gantry theatre in the centre of the city, in a development that it is pursuing? Does my right hon. Friend agree that his Department should liaise closely with local authorities where future funding is considered for regional theatre?

Richard Caborn: Very much so. The increase that I have referred to following the review from 2000 to 2004 is a 72 per cent. increase in the budgets. That is the most significant single increase ever for an art form. The Gantry theatre is an example of a theatre becoming part of the synergy between the creative industries. The approach of local authorities and other partners is extremely good.

Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as regional theatre we need to go down to local theatre to ensure that amateur and professional theatres, such as the Mechanics theatre in Burnley, survive? There is a link between local theatre and regional—and ultimately, national—theatre production.

Richard Caborn: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's specific question. I know that he will write to me. The 72 per cent. increase in investment is not just about bricks and mortar, it is about children and young people, diversity and, probably more important than anything, new writers. Fifty organisations have been set up to encourage young people to become involved in writing for the theatre and, it is to be hoped, for film as well. This is a comprehensive approach to the theatre to see how it can drive into the modern arts and into the modern economy as well.

Olympic Bid

Angela Watkinson: If she will make a statement on the Government's policy on a London bid for the 2012 Olympic games.

Richard Caborn: The Government fully recognise the potential benefits of a bid to host both the 2012 Olympics and the Paralympic games, which are sometimes forgotten when we talk about the Olympic games. It is important that any prospective bid be subject to full and rigorous scrutiny to ensure that it covers all eventualities and makes sufficient allowances for contingencies, which is why we have conducted detailed work on the cost and benefits of hosting the games in London in 2012.

Angela Watkinson: Does the Minister agree that a successful bid would be a tremendous boost for tourism in London, specifically the regeneration of east London and the Thames gateway, part of which lies in the London borough of Havering? I urge him to announce as soon as possible the funding arrangements for the bid.

Richard Caborn: I agree. We have been taking seriously inward investment in tourism and the impact on the Thames gateway. In fact, when submitting our proposals to the Cabinet we have had to consider carefully the effect on the 20-year plan for the Thames gateway, because we do not want expenditure priorities to affect that development. Equally, we do not want a bid to stop development, which could happen if the matter is not handled properly. It is therefore important to make sure that, if we make a bid, it dovetails with developments such as the Thames gateway.

Gareth Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a further benefit of holding the 2012 Olympic games in London would be significant new investment in sporting facilities to help grassroots sport? What assessment have his officials made of the way in which such investment could be spread outside the immediate area of the games, perhaps as far as west London?

Richard Caborn: On the regional development of sport, we are mindful that there must not be a diversion of funds from grassroots development into the submission of an Olympic bid. Yes, an Olympic bid may have regional benefits and, if a bid is made and we decide to go ahead, we will look at where we can get regional advantages both in running the games and hosting outside-London events such as sailing, shooting and football. Those are three sports that spring to mind where the regions could have an advantage and could be the sites of training camps before the Olympics.

Richard Ottaway: May I urge the Minister not to be put off by arguments that because the dome was a flop so will the Olympics be? With the dome, people did not know what they wanted to put in it or what they wanted to do with it afterwards. If the capital city of the world's fourth largest economy cannot make a bid, that does not say much for Britain, does it?

Richard Caborn: I think that the hon. Gentleman was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the President of the Board of Trade when the dome was discussed at length, and I fully agree that all the mistakes were made then. That apart, it is a great privilege for a country to host the Olympics so, if we make a bid, we will approach it seriously. We have the experience of the Commonwealth games, which were successful but had to be refinanced, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The plans on the bid submitted to the Cabinet will therefore be robust and deliverable. Besides the Commonwealth games, this weekend the International Association of Athletics Federations indoor world athletics championship is taking place in Birmingham, and we will show the world that we are very good at running major international events.

Jim Knight: Can my right hon. Friend expand on the regional role in any Olympics that may be held here in 2012? In particular, can he confirm what the British Olympic Association has told me—sailing, our most successful Olympic sport, would take place in Weymouth in my constituency; football would go on a tour around the country; and training camps, too, would seek homes all over the country?

Richard Caborn: That is exactly what I said a couple of minutes ago. A number of areas need to be explored in relation to how UK Limited can gain from the Olympics. There are already indications that we could get some fairly major economic gain in terms of inward investment and tourism. First, however, we have to make the bid. The Cabinet has not yet made the decision to do so, but if we do, we shall set up powerful committees to ensure that all the advantages will be made available both to the regions and to London. I hope that the partnerships that have formed so far across the House and between the political parties will be maintained right up to 2012.

John Whittingdale: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Barry Sheene, who did so much to make his own sport popular, and whose bravery both on and off the track was an inspiration to many people? Does the Minister agree that he demonstrated the power of sport to bring together people and, indeed, nations, and that that makes it all the more important that we should take a decision about the Olympics as soon as possible?

Richard Caborn: May I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's words about Barry Sheene? He was a tremendous sports person of the highest calibre. In terms of making the bid, let us be clear that what we are doing now is ensuring that the groundwork will be well covered and well prepared in the event of our making a bid. France has not even decided yet whether to put Paris into the ring. Moscow is about to make a decision, as are New York, possibly Madrid and probably a German city. The bids do not have to be in until July this year, and we want to ensure that what we present to the Cabinet is very good. We do not want to make the mistakes that were made over the dome, we do not necessarily want to go down the route of what happened at the Commonwealth games, and we are definitely not going to recycle Wembley and Picketts Lock. We are now saying that we are going to be strategy-driven rather than events-driven, and the preparation that we are making to present to the Cabinet will ensure that, if we do make a bid, it will be successful at every stage and we will not get into crisis management.

John Whittingdale: We obviously understand the pressure on Ministers' diaries and on their time at this particular moment, but it is seven months since the Ove Arup report, four months since the Minister undertook his global tour of Olympic cities, and eight weeks since the Government's own deadline for taking a decision. The Minister has talked about not rushing into anything, and we agree with that, but is there not a danger that the Government are beginning to give an impression of dither and lack of commitment just at the time when our potential competitors are warming up on the starting blocks?

Richard Caborn: I was in Copenhagen last week at the world anti-drugs agencies conference, and I spoke to Jacques Rogge of the International Olympic Committee. He, of all people, acknowledges the difficulties that politicians around the world are experiencing at the moment, involving some very serious issues that we hope can be resolved. Indeed, our Prime Minister is at the centre of that international stage, and we hope that he is making a positive contribution. To that extent, I believe that Jacques Rogge understood that the Olympics take second place at this time.
	I reiterate that I have not seen anyone on the starting blocks yet. France has not yet put in a bid for Paris, and others are still considering the issue. When our Secretary of State phoned Jacques Rogge to say that the Cabinet was not going to take a decision a few weeks ago, he told her that he was very impressed by the groundwork that was being done. The Arup report suggested a figure of about £2.3 billion; we have now moved to a figure of £3.6 billion to ensure that all the contingencies that we believe are likely to arise over the next eight or nine years are covered. That is very important indeed.

Channel Five

Chris Mullin: What recent representations she has received regarding the clauses in the Communications Bill on the ownership of Channel Five; and if she will make a statement.

Kim Howells: We received a number of representations on this subject from television and media companies and from members of the public. By removing ownership rules for Channel Five, we hope that new investment will allow it to grow and to provide more competition in terrestrial broadcasting.

Chris Mullin: What is to stop Mr. Murdoch's News Corporation buying up Channel Five and using it, through vigorous cross-promotion in his other assets, as a Trojan horse to overtake ITV as the main commercial channel? If my hon. Friend is unwilling to reinstate the cross-ownership rules, will he at least consider putting the quality standards thresholds that will be expected of Channel Five on the face of the Communications Bill, regardless of who the new owner happens to be?

Kim Howells: No. We have spent a great deal of time debating the creature that is to become Ofcom—it will be a powerful regulator. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that there is an anomaly in doing what we are doing with Channel Five, given that, at the moment, Vivendi, Bertelsmann, Berlusconi or any such company may own it. They are all enormous corporations with big interests in American groups, and so on. It is a very outdated idea that, somehow, the arrangements that are in place will prevent Channel Five from remaining a vibrant and good company. I am absolutely convinced that it will grow, whoever owns it, if the regulatory environment is a good one, and we have created the best that we can possibly create.

Michael Fabricant: Has not Channel Five been underfunded for too long and if News Corporation were to acquire it, would it not provide good funding, as it has already done for Sky One and the Sky sports channels, to provide good programming? The Minister mentioned a number of European media companies that could take over Channel Five, but could not a number of European media porn channels take it over? Rupert Murdoch is far preferable to that.

Kim Howells: I am not a paid-up member of the News International glee club, but I will say this to the hon. Gentleman: a lot of parody has been going on over the influence of various groups relating to the ownership of television channels and, indeed, of newspapers. There are sufficient controls in the proposed Ofcom, which we are in the business of creating right now, to ensure that abuses such as those the hon. Gentleman mentioned will not take place.

John Grogan: Given that the Secretary of State told the Westminster Media Forum that it would be open to Ofcom to ratchet up the public service obligations on Channel Five, are there not advantages for regulatory certainty in introducing a ratchet principle to the Bill, so that any purchaser of Channel Five would know clearly that, if its audience grew, there would be greater obligations to produce programmes, original productions and regional productions?

Kim Howells: I rarely disagree with my hon. Friend about anything, but that is a curious question. He is saying that there ought to be so many ratcheting mechanisms acting on Channel Five that nobody would want to buy it and nobody would want to grow it. That is not what Channel Five wants, and it is not what I want. I want Channel Five to flourish and become a real competitor to ITV and every other company broadcasting in this country. I also want it to become a quality broadcaster, which it is starting to do. If it is to achieve that, it will have to find investment from somewhere. Perhaps we ought to discard some of these conspiracy theory scenarios that we are so fond of spouting in this place and understand that broadcasters need investment, just as other companies do.

Rural Libraries

Anthony D Wright: What plans she has to encourage local authorities to maintain and develop rural libraries.

Richard Caborn: The Department recently published a 10-year vision for England's public libraries called "Framework for the Future". It is relevant to rural and urban settings, and draws on examples of good practice in country areas. We are working with Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries and with library authorities to see how they might best deliver that vision. Twenty copies of "Framework for the Future" were sent to each of the 149 authorities in England.

Anthony D Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and I am pleased to hear that we have that 10-year vision, which is completely different from that of the Tories on Norfolk county council, who recently announced the closure of one of my village libraries—Bradwell—for the princely sum of savings in the first year of £1,700. At the same meeting, they agreed to increase the hospitality budget from £28,000 to £88,000. The comment "booze instead of books" certainly springs to mind.
	Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the Conservatives for that miserly cut and the problems that it will create for the residents of the Bradwell parish council area? Will he also send the Government's support to the parish council, the Women's Institute, the mothers' union and county councillors, which are waging a campaign to keep that facility open and endeavouring to ensure that the library in the village of Bradwell has a future?

Richard Caborn: My officials inform me that the letter of the law under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 has not been broken, but perhaps the spirit of the law has been. "Booze instead of books" has a ring about it. I hope that all local authorities will take the "Framework for the Future" document seriously. It tries to reposition libraries in the 21st century as major centres of resource to help communities to develop. It does not view libraries in the traditional sense, as they were a decade or more ago. We are trying to upgrade libraries so that they can be a major resource for all communities, whether in rural or urban areas.

David Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who live in country areas have as much interest in and entitlement to a public library service as anyone else? Will he ensure that the extra unit costs of providing small branch libraries and a peripatetic service are recognised in local government settlements? Will he also ensure that small public libraries have broadband, so that they can offer the modern range of services that we want them to provide? At the moment, broadband is not available in my constituency.

Richard Caborn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that tremendous investment has been made in the infrastructure of libraries. I believe that 85 per cent. now have access to broadband, and another 13 per cent. have access to the internet in one form or another. Few libraries do not have such access, although I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point. There is a cost factor for rural libraries, but we will look into that. The speed at which we have been able to invest in the library structure to bring it up to date with e-development is considerable by any standards.

Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend has a great interest and expertise in the rural areas of Yorkshire, and he has just acknowledged the importance of broadband. Will he encourage a greater partnership with the regional development agencies around the country to ensure that there are links with the wider community and with business, so that they can make the most of the library service, which needs to be mobile in sparsely populated areas like mine, in the north York moors?

Richard Caborn: My hon. Friend makes a good point. An investment of about £780 million is going into public libraries. The "Framework for the Future" document says that integration is necessary, and I believe that the RDAs should develop libraries in their areas to ensure that greater use can be made of them, especially by small and medium-sized businesses and for learning.

Malcolm Moss: Since they came to power, the Government have systematically rigged the funding of local authorities to shift resources from the rural shire counties to Labour metropolitan areas. It is hardly surprising that rural libraries are all too often the first casualties of Government-induced pressure on resources. Given that rural library closures are on the increase, is the Minister content for his Department to preside over this diminishing but none the less priceless resource?

Richard Caborn: That is not the case. The present Administration have now brought about fairness in local government financing. We inherited an unfair system of distribution, and now there is fairness. [Laughter.] Conservative Members are disagreeing with that. There has been investment in libraries, and the constructive dialogue with the library service has produced the 10-year vision in "Framework for the Future". That has been accepted by all of them as the right way forward; it will bring the library service into the 21st century. If the authorities to which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) referred put booze before books, that is a matter for them, and the electorate will make their own decision.

New Opportunities Fund

Meg Munn: Which neighbourhoods will be given greater priority in the review of children's play facilities for the New Opportunities Fund.

Richard Caborn: No decisions have yet been made on that. The review is considering the needs of areas that have inadequate play opportunities and groups of children who have limited access to play. A report with recommendations about priorities for play provision will be published in the summer.

Meg Munn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that the splash programme that took place last summer in areas such as Jordanthorpe and Batemoor was successful in demonstrating that constructive activities for young people can lead to a reduction in crime? I urge him to consider the lessons from that scheme by ensuring that neighbourhoods where there are few resources for play and where family incomes are low, which prevent children from being able regularly to go swimming and to access other more expensive activities, are taken into account in using this money to the maximum benefit.

Richard Caborn: I very much agree. I hope that through the summer splash and splash extra programmes we will be able to continue to fund developments, not only over the summer period, but beyond that. They have proved to be an extremely good investment. They have taken young people off the streets and into creative activities, leading to a tremendous reduction in crime. The steering group—which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who has been pushing this very hard—has been active in consultations in the regions, of which there have been nine. He has attended all but one, along with Tim Gill, the director of the Children's Play Council, who has been seconded to the Department to consider the areas in which children's play can be most effective.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister will be aware that the all-party sport and leisure group, of which I am deputy chairman, has long-standing concerns about the diminishing number of playing fields and children's play areas. At last week's meeting, the chairman of the National Playing Fields Association pointed out to hon. Members that the Government's much vaunted protection for play areas does not cover children who are under eight and, in addition, of the 202 fields that have been referred to his Department for consultation, permission for sale has been refused in only six cases. I know that the Minister shares my concern about that, so will he look urgently at his scheme's failure to work, especially in relation to the protection of playing fields and play areas for the under-eights?

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman paints a gloomy picture, which does not reflect the real world. First, we have introduced the revised PPG17, which is the first time that play areas and playing fields have been brought together in a planning guidance. That guidance, which is very proactive, asks each local authority to carry out a needs assessment of its play facilities.
	As regards the 202 applications, the hon. Gentleman did not inform the House that those applications are often made in order to build a pavilion or other accommodation that would enhance the quality of the play area. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are challenging that, so I shall give an example. A rugby club that had several pitches but no proper changing facilities made an application that we approved, which was regarded as the closure, or part closure, of a playing area. One must be objective about the matter, not view it only on the basis of statistics.

Betty Williams: As part of the review, does my right hon. Friend have plans to consult the Welsh Assembly Government, and can he tell us how long the review is likely to take?

Richard Caborn: In terms of the Welsh Assembly, the answer is yes. The planning guidance covers Wales, so it has to comply with PPG17. I hope that local authorities in Wales will respond positively.

John Greenway: How many responses did the Minister's Department receive in support of the idea of merging the New Opportunities Fund with the community fund? Is it not now obvious that the public have rumbled that NOF money is substituting Government funds for projects that should be paid for by the taxpayer? Would it not make more sense if the Government redirected more funding to the original good causes, such as the community fund and the sports lottery fund, which are better placed to make independent assessments about play and sports projects that would command the support of lottery players?

Richard Caborn: We have consulted widely on modernising the lottery and the hon. Gentleman will know that we have received a considerable number of submissions.

John Greenway: How many?

Richard Caborn: I do not know the exact number but I will find out and supply the information to the Library. We are trying to be more efficient with the New Opportunities Fund and the community fund. We believe that the case has been made for bringing them together. We will put that to Parliament and to all the funding partners. We believe that things can be streamlined and that the central idea of the National Lotteries Act 1993, which was to do with additionality, is maintained today, as it was in 1993.

Digital and Satellite Broadcasting

David Taylor: What steps she is taking to strengthen the public service requirements for major providers of commercial digital and satellite broadcasting services.

Kim Howells: Through the Communications Bill, the Government are extending the requirements for subtitling, signing and audio description on digital terrestrial television services to digital cable and digital satellite services. Furthermore, all licensed broadcasters who meet threshold conditions will be required to promote training, equality of opportunity between men and women and between persons of different racial groups, and the fair treatment of disabled persons in relation to employment with them.

David Taylor: Further to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), should not the Government introduce a ratchet requirement so that as the audience share of commercial, digital and satellite broadcasting services increases, so too should their public service obligation to produce a high standard of quality and content? Otherwise, are we not likely to be submerged in a tide of dire and facile transatlantic pap—plenty of Scooby-Doo, but a paucity of serious drama and substantial documentaries?

Kim Howells: I do not agree with a word of that. If my hon. Friend cares to examine the wonderful magazine Broadcast, which I believe is weekly, he will see that the entire top 50 programmes were made in Britain and broadcast on terrestrial channels. Whether my hon. Friend likes it or not, they are the most popular programmes in this country. There is an almost complete dearth of the kinds of programmes that he mentioned—which I understand him to assume are made in America or Australia.

Kevin Brennan: On the subject of public service requirements on digital television services, can the Minister do anything about the size of the picture that is transmitted on the BBC Parliament channel on the freeview service? It takes up only about a quarter of the screen. At any time, there must be dozens of people around the country who are watching the Parliament channel. They would welcome the opportunity to see hon. Members in full widescreen.

Kim Howells: Seeing hon. Members in full widescreen would at least keep children away from touching the screen.

Tennis

John Bercow: If she will make a statement on the extent of tennis practice and tuition in maintained schools.

Richard Caborn: We do not collect detailed data on particular sports in maintained schools. Schools choose the precise activities and sports that they offer their pupils. Tennis may be taught as part of the games element of national curriculum PE; games is one of six areas of activity within the national curriculum PE and is compulsory for all pupils aged between five and 14. Pupils aged from 14 to 16 must choose two of the six areas.

John Bercow: Frankly, that answer literally oozes complacency. It is nearly 67 years since Britain had a men's singles champion at Wimbledon and nearly 26 years since Britain had a female singles champion at Wimbledon. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the dearth of tennis practice and tuition in schools is a serious problem? What discussions has he had with his hon. and right hon. Friends in the Department for Education and Skills about it? To increase participation in tennis, does the Minister have any plans to play some demonstration games himself?

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman ought to reflect on the last 18 years of the period that he describes, which were under his party's Administration. That was when the seeds of rot were sown. As the hon. Gentleman knows, since coming to power we have invested in sports colleges—of which we will be rolling out 400—and in 3,000 school sports co-ordinators. The Lawn Tennis Association has acknowledged and welcomed all of that. We have just given £9.3 million to the LTA to develop the club structure for tennis, along the lines of what we have done with football, rugby and other sports. We are having to clear up 18 years of mismanagement in sport and we are doing so very successfully indeed. If ever we go out of office, we will have champions—unlike Conservative Members, who undermined our champions.

Regional Museums

Joyce Quin: What plans she has for the development of regional museums.

Kim Howells: We will be providing £70 million for regional museums from this year until 2005–06, which will represent a 200 per cent. increase in central Government funding by the end of the spending review period. The funds will be used to modernise and improve the quality of regional museums' services. Extra funding will also be made available to the national museums to enable them to work in partnership with regional museums. Additionally, there will be funds from the Department for Education and Skills to support museum education projects.

Joyce Quin: I welcome that news and the fact that Tyne and Wear Museums is one of the new pathfinder museum hubs. Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Library has made arrangements to show facsimile versions of the Lindisfarne gospels in two locations in the north-east, in Durham and on Lindisfarne? Although that is welcome, can he reassure me that that does not preclude the originals being on display in the region, at least from time to time and, hopefully, permanently, because that would give a big boost to the region's tourism industry and its economy generally?

Kim Howells: I am sure that it must be a priority for the museums and our Department to work that out. I have long believed that we should make far greater use of travelling exhibitions of some of the great treasures that are held in our national museums. I am sure that that would benefit people who live in all parts of the country.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Employment Directives

Andrew Selous: To ask the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what recent representations the Church Commissioners have received concerning European Union employment directives as they affect churches.

Stuart Bell: The Commissioners have received no representations. The Archbishops Council has had extensive conversations with the Department of Trade and Industry about the proposed implementation of the directives on employment and race agreed in the 2000 document, as set out in "Towards Equality and Diversity".

Andrew Selous: I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. Does he share the concern expressed to me by a number of my local clergy that they may be forced to employ people who are hostile to the aims of their churches? Does he also agree that that could be a problem for all faiths, not just for the Church of England?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. The Archbishops Council responded to the document on employment and race in January. I accept that the Church faces questions on occupation or employment. The hon. Gentleman and others can take up questions on doctrine with the Archbishops Council. I shall be glad to draw any comments or fears that he has to its attention.

Steve Webb: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the directives impinge not merely on parish churches, but on a wider range of organisations that the Church Commissioners support? Although it would be quite wrong to expect the Labour party to employ a card-carrying Conservative, church organisations are being expected to employ people who do not necessarily share their fundamental beliefs. Does he accept that analogy?

Stuart Bell: I would be surprised if the Church of England employed, or gave gainful occupation to, clergy who do not support the doctrines of the Church. There may be diverse differences on what that doctrine should be. The Church Commissioners would not be involved in those arguments, but I shall be glad to draw the hon. Gentleman's worries to the Archbishops Council.

Angela Eagle: May I caution my hon. Friend not to get too worried about that? As someone who was around when the directives were negotiated, I know that great protections are in place. Those who think that churches can be exempt from discrimination legislation and employment protection do the reputation of their churches no good. Will he take it from me that the directives allow for the exceptions that have been outlined?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the assistance of my hon. Friend on the matter and for the knowledge that she brings to the subject. Overall, the Church is concerned about so-called employment rights or occupation rights. That is seen in its reference to the Department of Trade and Industry discussion document on employment terms. We as a Church wish to observe good practice in the treatment of our clergy and we are moving rapidly to some consultation conclusions in that regard.

Lichfield Cathedral

Michael Fabricant: To ask the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if the commissioners will visit Lichfield cathedral in order to discuss the maintenance programme for the fabric of thebuilding.

Stuart Bell: As the Association of English Cathedrals maintains the dialogue with English Heritage on matters of fabric funding, the commissioners keep a watchful eye on that. The Church Commissioners are well aware of the tireless work at Lichfield and other cathedrals to meet the continuing challenges of maintaining these much loved buildings.

Michael Fabricant: May I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit Lichfield cathedral, perhaps during the period beginning 1 July, when we have our international arts festival, some of which is held in the cathedral and some of which will be held in our new Garrick theatre? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we have just had to cough up £2.5million for a new organ, that we will have to find about £3 million to restore the Flemish glass in the cathedral, that it is a grade 1 listed building more than 800 years old, and that hardly any money is available from the Government to support the building? Is it not right that the hon. Gentleman should meet the administrators of Lichfield cathedral to discuss alternative ways of raising funds?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he makes me an offer that I cannot refuse. I will be happy to attend the Lichfield arts festival in July. I am aware that it is an internationally renowned festival and that it has broadcasts on BBC Radio 3, and I wish the festival well. I shall be happy to meet the administrators, so long as the hon. Gentleman does not require me to take a cheque for £2.5 million in my pocket.

Church of England Finances

David Taylor: Toask the honourable Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the impact on the recruitment to the stipendiary ministry of the financial position of the Church of England.

Stuart Bell: The Church Commissioners have made no assessment in those terms. The Church trains all candidates whose call to ministry is affirmed through the selection process, without imposing financial limitations. The majority of the funds needed to support the Church's ministry come from the generous giving of its members, and training is funded from this source.

David Taylor: Is it not the case that the amount of funds available per stipendiary minister varies widely from diocese to diocese? Is my hon. Friend concerned that in some rural dioceses, and in some inner-city ones, the cash available to recruit and appoint talented and well motivated men and women to the stipendiary ministry is disappearing fast? Does he fear that issues related to that will arise in the medium term?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. May I say at the outset that we in the Church are very grateful for the giving that takes place throughout the country in different dioceses, both rural and urban? He will be aware that we have 9,500 stipendiary ministers engaged in the diocesan and parochial ministry. Although there are concerns about how they may be funded in the future, we are grateful for the giving by our members and by people who go to church on a Sunday. We hope to meet any concerns that my hon. Friend has in respect of rural and urban area ministries.

Sydney Chapman: Is it not a fact that the Church Commissioners make a significant, substantial contribution towards clergy pay and pensions? If they are to continue to do so, is it not equally obvious that they must be encouraged to make the best possible returns on their assets, within what I would describe as self-regulated ethical constraints?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, we have an ethical policy in the Church in relation to our investments. In 2001, the Commissioners provided some £160 million for the support of the Church. That was 20 per cent. of the Church's total expenditure of about £800 million. It is not often understood just how much money goes into the Church to meet its obligations to the clergy, to pensions, to the fabric of our cathedrals and even, with the help of the Government, for redundant churches.

SPEAKER'S COMMITTEE ON THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Postal Ballots

Chris Bryant: What assessment the commission has made of the likely effect of all-postal ballots for referendums.

Angela Browning: On this occasion, I have been asked to reply on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who apologises for not being in the House this afternoon. The Electoral Commission has made no such assessment.

Chris Bryant: I thank the hon. Lady for that non-answer. I wonder whether she has noticed that a referendum in Malta this weekend had a 92 per cent. turnout and a very successful yes vote, about which all Labour Members are clearly delighted, despite several Conservative Members of the European Parliament campaigning against the yes vote for Malta to join the European Union. Would not it be a good idea for the Electoral Commission to consider the effect of postal ballots in advance of the euro referendum that we are likely to have later this year, so that it can recommend an all-postal ballot and we can get a really good yes result?

Angela Browning: If I can add flesh to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Gentleman, he will be aware that currently there is no provision in law for any UK national or regional referendum to be conducted by all-postal ballot. For mayoral referendums, the law provides that an all-postal ballot may be used at the discretion of the local authority. If he has an interest in such a ballot for other types of election, such as European elections, he may care to try asking a question of the Lord Chancellor's Department, which will be in a position to decide whether the House could make such a change in the law.

Voting Age

Bob Spink: What representations have been made to the commission regarding the reduction in age of voting to 16.

Angela Browning: The commission has received representations directly from the votes at 16 campaign. It is also aware that a number of parliamentarians, political parties and independent bodies established to look into democratic engagement have supported moves to reduce the voting age to 16.

Bob Spink: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I know that she shares with me an appreciation of the importance of encouraging young people to participate in the voting process. Will she share with the House the strategies that the commission is adopting to increase the participation rate? Does she agree that while reduction of the voting age is an important matter, it should be considered very carefully?

Angela Browning: I am happy to advise my hon. Friend that the commission has been involved closely with the work led by the Government's children and young people's unit to examine the cause of political disengagement among young people, and to find solutions to these problems. The commission now chairs a group of non-governmental organisations involved in encouraging participation by young people, the main focus of which is to ensure that recommendations from the CYPU report are taken forward by those to whom they are directed. The commission also published in July 2002 the results of a research project analysing the factors motivating young people in their electoral behaviour, and will continue to target young people through its advertising and PR campaigns and wider outreach programmes.

John Cryer: I acknowledge what the hon. Lady said. Does she agree that when 16 and 17-year-olds can pay taxes, work, pay national insurance and join the armed forces, there can be no logical reason why they cannot vote, too?

Angela Browning: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, on 27 February, the commission announced the start of work on a review of the minimum age for voting and candidacy in public elections in the United Kingdom. The timetable for that review envisages a period of consultation over the summer of 2003, with publication of a final report, with recommendations, in early 2004. The hon. Gentleman may want to make the point that he has made to the House this afternoon in response to that consultation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Can we have some order in the House?

Party Funding Legislation

Martin Linton: What discussions he has had with the chairman of the Electoral Commission on his current review of party funding legislation.

Angela Browning: My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has had no discussions with the chairman of the Electoral Commission about that matter.

Martin Linton: May I ask the hon. Lady to ask her hon. Friend to have some discussions with the commission chairman about that? When she does so, will she urge him to give priority to lower spending limits for elections, a cap on donations, and a greater degree of support for political parties in the work that they do that is not directly political, such as training, international work and youth work? Will she assure him that there will be cross-party support on the issue, given that the Conservative party has received more money from public funds than it has in cash donations in the latest quarter, according to Electoral Commission figures—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One question.

Angela Browning: I think that I have got the hon. Gentleman's drift, Mr. Speaker.
	The hon. Gentleman will understand that, in fact, the whole Committee, not just my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), will have those discussions with the Electoral Commission, but I hope that he will be encouraged to know—this picks up several of the issues that he raises—that the commission has two reviews under way: a short review of electoral reform and the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, which will be completed in May, and a more root-and-branch review of party funding, which will report by the first quarter of 2004.

Iraq and Israel/Palestine

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Iraq and Israel/Palestine.
	On Friday last, 7 March, I attended a ministerial meeting of the Security Council in New York—the fourth such meeting since late January. I have placed in the Library copies of the chief inspector's latest reports, together with the text of the speech that I gave to the Council, and a copy of the amended second resolution of which the United Kingdom is a co-signatory.
	The Security Council's meeting on Friday took place four months after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, which gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with a series of disarmament obligations. Significantly, during the hours of intensive debate last Friday, not a single speaker claimed that Iraq was in compliance with those obligations; neither did a single speaker deny that Iraq has been in flagrant breach of international law for the past 12 years.
	Dr. el-Baradei's and Dr. Blix's reports were about the continuing work of the inspectors. As I did in New York last Friday, I should like to pay tribute to them and their teams for their work in very difficult circumstances.
	First, let me deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency. As the House will be aware, nuclear facilities are intrinsically more difficult to construct and less easy to conceal than equivalent facilities for producing biological or chemical weapons. Dr. el-Baradei reported on Friday last that
	"after three months of intrusive inspections, the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."
	That is welcome.
	On UNMOVIC on the other hand, Dr. Blix reported movement in some limited areas: for example, the partial destruction of prohibited al-Samoud missiles. That is, however, only the tip of the iceberg of Iraq's illegal weapons programme. The full extent of that iceberg was revealed in a document compiled by UNMOVIC entitled "Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes", which was made publicly available late on 7 March. I have also placed copies of that document in the Library. I commend it to all Members. It sets out, in 173 pages of painstaking detail, the terrible nature of the weapons that Saddam has sought with such determination to develop. It is a chilling catalogue of evasion, deceit and feigning co-operation while in reality pursuing concealment.
	The sheer scale of Iraq's efforts to develop those weapons and to hide them can be grasped only by reading the whole document, as I have done. But, from the 29 separate sets of unresolved issues, let me give the House just one illustration: anthrax—easily inhaled and the death rate for untreated victims may be 90 per cent. or more. Only tiny amounts are needed to inflict widespread casualties. Contrary to Iraqi assertions, the inspectors found evidence of anthrax where Iraq had declared there was none. Again, contrary to Iraqi assertions, UNMOVIC believes there is a strong presumption that some 10,000 litres of anthrax were not destroyed in the early 1990s and may still exist. Iraq also possesses the technology and materials to allow it to return swiftly to the pre-1991 production levels for anthrax.
	Let me now deal with the issues of inspections and more time. I fully recognise the temptation to believe that the inspections are working and all that is needed is more time. But Saddam Hussein is a master of playing for time. Frankly, as anyone can see from reading the UNMOVIC document, to continue inspections with no firm end date will not achieve the disarmament required by the Security Council. This is, however, the suggestion in the recent memorandum from France, Germany and Russia. As the memorandum itself acknowledges, that cannot be achieved without the fulfilment of a prior condition—namely, Iraq's full, active and immediate co-operation.
	Once more last Friday, the Iraqi permanent representative to the United Nations claimed that Iraq had no more weapons of mass destruction. It is the same old refrain that we have heard from the regime for the past 12 years. Yet whenever the inspectors have caught the regime out, it has first protested, then conceded that narrow point, but then mendaciously claimed that there are no more.
	The choice before us is whether we stand firm in pursuing our objective of disarmament or settle for a policy that, in truth, allows Saddam to rebuild his arsenal under cover of just enough co-operation to keep the inspectors tied down for years to come.We should not deceive ourselves. The alternative proposals before the Security Council amount to a return to the failed policy of so-called containment. But the truth is that containment can never bring disarmament, nor is it the policy of the United Nations as expressed in resolution 1441 and in all the preceding resolutions going back to 1991.
	Dr. Blix reported on some further recent activity by Iraq in respect mainly of the al-Samoud missiles. We must ask: what has caused this further recent activity, albeit limited as it is? It is not our policy that has changed, nor international law, nor the degree of diplomatic pressure. The reality is that the only thing that has changed has been the willingness of the United States and the United Kingdom to deploy their armed forces for the sake of achieving the objective very clearly set out by the United Nations. The other reality is that Saddam responds only to pressure. The clear conclusion to draw from this is that we must further increase the pressure on him. We have to put him to the test clearly laid down by the United Nations.
	The Government have made clear all along their desire to secure a peaceful outcome to this crisis. It is for this reason that I took the initiative in the Security Council last Friday to circulate a revised version of the UK-US-Spain draft second resolution. This specifies a further period beyond the adoption of the resolution for Iraq to take the final opportunity to disarm. Negotiations on its important detail have continued over the weekend and again this morning. We are examining whether a list of defined tests for Iraqi compliance would be useful in helping the Security Council to come to a judgment.
	What we are proposing is eminently reasonable. We are not expecting Saddam to have disarmed in a week or so—let me make that absolutely clear, as I did last Friday—but we are expecting the Iraqi regime to demonstrate by that time the full, unconditional, immediate and active co-operation demanded of it by successive UN Security Council resolutions since 1991. There is no reason whatever why, within a matter of days, Iraq cannot make clear its desire fully and actively to co-operate. There is no reason at all.
	I profoundly hope that the Iraqi regime will, even at this late stage, seize the chance to disarm peacefully. The only other peaceful alternative would be for Saddam Hussein to heed the calls of a number of other Arab leaders for him to go into exile and to hand over to a new leadership prepared to conform with the Security Council's demands. However, if he refuses to co-operate, the Security Council has to face up to its clear responsibilities under the United Nations charter.
	In the event that military action proves necessary, the international community will have, among many other duties, a duty to build a secure, prosperous future for the Iraqi people. Last Thursday, I met the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, in New York to discuss the humanitarian position and UN involvement in any reconstruction of Iraq. At that meeting, I proposed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that the UN should take the lead role in co-ordinating international efforts to rebuild Iraq, and that they should be underpinned by a clear UN mandate.
	As the crisis enters this phase, there are fears that, in securing Iraq's compliance with international law, we may exacerbate tensions elsewhere in the region. Emotions are understandably inflamed by the position in Israel and the occupied territories, where, tragically, there appears to be no end to the spiral of killings. Since September 2000, more than 2,300 Palestinians and more than 700 Israelis have been killed. We mourn the loss of life on all sides.
	However, we cannot allow the cycle of violence to destroy hope for a better future. There is ground for optimism. The international community today shares our vision of a lasting settlement as set out in a series of Security Council resolutions for a viable Palestinian state based on the 1967 boundaries, and an Israeli state free from terror, secure in its borders and recognised by the Arab world.
	We are actively encouraging both sides to fulfil their obligations. We are playing a full part in the international effort to help the Palestinian Authority to do more to build democratic institutions and a sound civil administration. As hon. Members know, I chaired a meeting in London on 14 January to discuss those issues with Palestinian leaders. It was unfortunate that that happened through video link because they were prevented from travelling outside the occupied territories. The discussions also included representatives from the region and the Quartet—the UN, the European Union, the Russian Federation and the United States.
	The United Kingdom hosted further meetings, which were attended by Palestinian representatives in person, between 18 and 20 February. I have spoken to Chairman Arafat of the Palestinian Authority twice in the past seven days. I greatly welcome his decision to nominate Abu Mazen, who is also known as Mahmoud Abbas, to the post of Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority. I hope that the Palestinian legislative council approves that nomination.
	Those who know Abu Mazen realise that he has a fine track record in peace negotiations with Israel and that he will lead the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinians well as putative Prime Minister. We hope that that appointment and other reform measures by the Palestinian Authority will help to restore a meaningful peace process, as set out in the road map that the Quartet devised.
	Likewise, we look to Mr. Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, and his new team of Ministers to work with the international community in restoring hopes for peace. I shall talk to the new Israeli Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom, tomorrow.
	A lasting settlement in the middle east will remove one great threat to security in the region and the wider world. In confronting the danger from Iraq's weapons, the UN can remove another great threat. We must not let Saddam turn his "final opportunity" to disarm, as set out in resolution 1441, into endless opportunities to delay. The future not only of the region but of UN authority is at stake.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it. It is a welcome report from last Friday, but I am sure he agrees that it cannot be regarded as a substitute for a proper debate and a vote.
	I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement on Israel and Palestine. We also welcome the current constitutional changes that the Palestinian Authority is making. However, if the changes are to have a beneficial effect on the peace process, Mr. Arafat's future role should be more ceremonial and less politically engaged. That must be matched on the Israeli side by an end to settlement activity and a genuine readiness to engage in negotiation. We must also look for a cessation of violence on all sides, and press the Israeli Government to exercise maximum restraint in the occupied territories at this time. If the Muslim world is truly to believe that our argument with Saddam Hussein is not a fight with Islam, we must demonstrate that we mean what we say about pursuing two states west of the Jordan, a secure Israel and a viable Palestine. We would welcome immediate American diplomatic engagement to revive that process.
	The Iraq situation outlined by the Foreign Secretary is grim. I have to say to him that many serious questions and doubts remain in the country as to whether the case for action has been made. I lay that at the door of the Government because they are the possessor of the information that can be deployed and I say earnestly that I hope that he will use the days that may remain before any action may take place to ensure that that case continues to be made and strongly so. He mentioned the written report from Dr. Blix that was published late last Friday. He gave us one example and I hope that he will take the opportunity in the days ahead to produce more of that information for the British people to absorb.
	On Friday, Dr. Blix confirmed again that Saddam Hussein was not complying completely and immediately with resolution 1441 and that he remained in breach of it. There has been some grudging compliance, but will the Foreign Secretary again confirm that that is not the result of any change in the attitude of Saddam Hussein? That grudging compliance has resulted from the international community sending a clear and united message of its resolve to enforce resolution 1441 one way or another. Does he agree that, if there is a recklessness to be considered in the present context, it is in the sending out of confused and divided messages that allow Saddam Hussein once again to play for time and, in the end, to continue to re-arm?
	The Foreign Secretary referred to Dr. el-Baradei's findings. Does he agree with those findings, and how do they sit with his previous statements, which suggested that there was a rather different situation in relation to the development of nuclear weapons? The written evidence presented to the Security Council is, as he says, chilling. I read a report this morning that it included information about a large undeclared unmanned aircraft. Will he explain what he knows about that and what danger that device would pose?
	There has been talk of giving Saddam more time. Dr. Blix suggested that disarmament might take months not weeks. Am I not right in recollecting that, in the case of South Africa, once agreement to disarm had been reached with the United Nations, it was carried out not in months, but in a matter of days? Would that not also be the case if Saddam Hussein agreed proactively to disarm as he is required to do by resolution 1441?
	In the event of an unreasonable veto on the second resolution, I believe that the Government's position has been made clear, but what would be their position in the event of, say, vetoes from three permanent members? Have the Government fully considered the long-term implications of such a situation or, indeed, of failing to achieve a majority for a second resolution at all? Those questions may be as yet unresolved, but the House has a right to share some of the Government's thinking on those matters.
	The draft resolution introduces a deadline. I noticed that the Foreign Secretary did not mention what that deadline was; he was rather coy about mentioning a date. Will he confirm that the date remains what we were told it was last Friday? Is he suggesting that if Iraq has not fully complied with that deadline, military action will automatically follow? If so, who will assess whether that compliance has been effected?
	I note the Foreign Secretary's meeting with Kofi Annan to discuss UN involvement in post-Saddam Iraq and I welcome it. What arrangements are being made in practice for urgent humanitarian assistance? What arrangements are there to ensure that a truly representative Administration is ready to take over in Iraq? Is he suggesting—this is quite important—that those arrangements will be underpinned by a United Nations mandate?
	Resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to disarm. That final opportunity cannot be open-ended, which is why we support the second resolution. However, we continue to demand that this House must have a substantive say on the outcome. Will the Foreign Secretary assure us that the vote in this House will not take place until the Security Council itself has voted, so that we will know what we are being asked to vote for or against?
	Let us hope that, even at this late hour, Saddam Hussein will still see sense and make all this unnecessary; but if he does not, we must not falter in our resolve.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for my statement. I have done my best throughout this crisis to keep the House fully and immediately informed, and I shall continue to do so. Of course, I accept that a statement is no substitute for a debate or a vote.
	I note what the right hon. Gentleman correctly said about this not appearing to be a "fight with Islam". We are completely committed to doing everything that we can to secure an early settlement of the terrible conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I want to see early publication of the road map that was agreed before Christmas, and this morning I discussed that issue, among others, with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
	It cannot be repeated often enough that all the conflicts in which British forces and the United Nations have been involved over the past 12 years happen to have been ones in which the victims of aggression were people of the Islamic faith and the people who were saved from that aggression were people of the Islamic faith. If, God forbid, force proves to be necessary in the Iraqi crisis, the same will be true in this case.
	We look forward to Iraq's compliance. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that when the UN Security Council is united in its message, there is a much higher chance of securing Iraq's compliance than there is when differences of opinion are expressed. He asked me about the report made by Dr. el-Baradei last Friday. I described the main conclusion of that report and said that I welcomed it. The whole point of the inspections was to raise concerns that we felt justified in raising. Dr. el-Baradei pointed out that he has not yet signed off the dossier, but I thought it only right to give the House the flavour of the overall burden of his report.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the references to unmanned vehicles, or UAVs as they are known. Those were late insertions into the 173-page report by Dr. Blix, which was published late last Friday. The 167-page version, which I read last week, did not include those references, which is why I did not refer to the matter at the Security Council. Page 14 of the longer version states:
	"Recent inspections have revealed the existence of a drone with a wingspan of 7.45 metres that has not been declared by Iraq. Officials at the inspection site stated that the drone had been test-flown. Further inspection is required to establish the actual specification and capabilities of these RPVs and whether Iraq has UAVs / RPVs that exceed the 150 kilometres limit as we believe they do."
	The vehicles may also have a facility for launching chemical and biological weapons.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me about a second resolution. We have made it clear throughout that we want a second resolution for political reasons, because a consensus is required, if we can achieve it, for any military action. On the legal basis for that, it should be pointed out that resolution 1441 does not require a second resolution.
	That issue was discussed ad nauseam in the eight weeks of negotiation for resolution 1441. France and others proposed a clause requiring us to go back to the Security Council for a second resolution, and they voluntarily dropped that proposal. In place of that, France agreed to paragraphs 4, 11, 12 and 13, which state that where there is a material breach—as plainly there already is, as the Council made clear last Friday—that can lead, within resolution 1441, to Iraq having to suffer serious consequences for its failure to meet its obligations.

Michael Moore: Those on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement, and I am grateful to have received a copy in advance.
	The pressure on Saddam Hussein and his regime to disarm is intense, and progress is being made. As the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, stated on Friday, the destruction of missiles constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament. UNMOVIC is now drafting a work programme to tackle the unresolved disarmament issues, as Dr. Blix puts it. Clearly the weapons inspectors believe that they still have a worthwhile job to do, and they need more time to do it. Will the Foreign Secretary accept that there are still diplomatic and political options open to the international community and that the military agenda must not dictate the calendar for inspections? Will he confirm that he believes that war should be the last resort, based on clear objectives and an assessment of the likely consequences?
	Nowhere will that be more important than in the middle east. We all seek an end to the sickening cycle of violence and we applaud the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary's efforts to make progress, but will the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that steps to bring peace to the middle east and elsewhere will be damaged if, in prosecuting the case against Iraq, we threaten to ignore the United Nations and in so doing undermine the principles of international law in whose name we act?

Jack Straw: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He is entirely right to say that the pressure is intense, but that raises the question of why it is intense. I wonder what would have happened if there had been Liberal Democrat pressure—if that is not an oxymoron. There is a blunt reality about why inspections are now working and no one must resile from it. In last Friday's report, as in his previous reports, Dr. Blix made it absolutely clear when he spoke of "serious outside pressure". Yes, the pressure is serious; it is just outside, in Kuwait; it is the armed forces. It is important that the hon. Gentleman and his party understand that.
	Of course war is a last resort—war should always be a last resort. I believe that that is the sentiment of every single Member of this House, whatever their party. No one has a monopoly of wisdom or of morality on this issue.
	As for steps to bring peace to the middle east, I agree that we must not be diverted from our efforts to ensure peace in the middle east between the Israelis and the Palestinians as we have to make difficult decisions on Iraq. The purpose of my making a statement today on the twin subjects of Iraq and Israel/Palestine is to emphasise to the House, the country and the region our profound commitment to pursue peace in the middle east in any event. The matter is urgent. It would be urgent without Iraq, and it becomes even more urgent with Iraq. That is a point that I continue to emphasise with our American friends.
	As for ignoring the United Nations, that is a canard—it is totally untrue. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has moved heaven and earth to ensure that the whole issue of Iraq is dealt with through the United Nations. It was he more than anyone else who ensured that the process of negotiation through the United Nations began in August and September and led to a satisfactory conclusion; and he, with many Foreign Ministers and Heads of Government, is seeking to ensure that there is a proper conclusion now.
	Everybody in the United Nations has responsibilities under the charter—not only the United States and the United Kingdom among the permanent members, but all the other permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council, all of whom have signed up to the charter, including chapter 7, which spells out that sometimes force is necessary where there is defiance of the clear obligations under chapter 7. In the present case, force may indeed be necessary.

Stuart Bell: Does the Foreign Secretary recall the statement of the French Foreign Minister that threats of force and diplomacy have brought Saddam Hussein to partial compliance? Is it not odd that the French now seek to block a final resolution under which diplomacy and the threat of force would converge, so that Saddam Hussein knew once and for all that, in the interests of Iraq and of the Iraqi people, he must comply fully?

Jack Straw: I agree. Both diplomacy and a credible, but therefore rising, threat of force are needed. However, it is the credible threat of force that is making the difference. This is our best and only opportunity to resolve the issue in a peaceful way.

Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for a statement that was the reverse of reckless. Is he aware that many of us who supported, without a United Nations resolution, action in the former Yugoslavia, believe that action is even more justified in this case?

Jack Straw: I note what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I have already made clear our view about the legal base that is provided by resolution 1441, going back to resolutions 687 and 678. However, we continue to follow the route that we have outlined of securing a new consensus within the Security Council because it gives us a greater opportunity of resolving the issue in a peaceful way.

Michael Clapham: I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend's reply to the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), on the question of the United Nations second resolution. Given the arm twisting that we know is going on at the UN, could a second resolution ever give legitimacy to action? Does my right hon. Friend not think that the way forward, given that situation, is that we should be giving more time to Hans Blix and the inspectors?

Jack Straw: It just happens that in international diplomacy there are some robust discussions. I am willing to speculate that my good friend Dominique de Villepin, who is currently perambulating round Africa, to Cameroon, Angola and Guinea, to take three countries at random—[Laughter]—is not just having a café and a little conversation with those he is meeting. I suspect he is reminding them about their loyalty to francophone Africa and how that loyalty can be both proved and disproved.
	On the issue of time, if Iraq comes into compliance, and how it can do so realistically is set out clearly in the document, it can have all the time in the world, just as happened with the inspections in South Africa. Actually, it would not take very long. But if Iraq does not come into compliance, time is irrelevant. There will be time after time, and we will be back again having to face a decision about compliance. It is compliance first and then time, not the other way round.

John Maples: I think that the Foreign Secretary knows that I support the Government's policy on Iraq, but like many people I am deeply worried about the damage that it appears to be doing to the western Alliance. We saw the difficulties in the run-up to UN Security Council resolution 1441. These things seem to have become much more difficult now with, as the right hon. Gentleman has described, the French Foreign Minister drumming up opposition to a resolution proposed by two of France's supposed main allies. At one level, I suppose that the Foreign Secretary would say that that is just French mischief-making, but is it not also a demonstration of a failure of diplomacy? Should we not have put much more effort earlier into building the coalition diplomatically before the policy was launched? What are the right hon. Gentleman and the British Government doing to rescue the damage that is being done to the western Alliance?

Jack Straw: We are putting a great deal of effort into that. I greatly regret the impasse that so far has been reached. I still hope that we may be able to avoid it. However, on 8 November last, after intense negotiations, we achieved a 15-0 result on resolution 1441. The words meant what they said then, and they mean what they say today.

Tam Dalyell: On Dr. el-Baradei's report and the question of uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, Dr. el-Baradei said that
	"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents—which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger—are in fact not authentic."
	What does the Foreign Office know about "not authentic" documents?

Jack Straw: What I would say is this—the idea of putting faith in inspectors is to put faith in inspectors. There were perfectly legitimate reasons—

Tam Dalyell: Answer the question.

Jack Straw: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I am answering the question. There were perfectly legitimate reasons for having the greatest suspicion about the possibility of Iraq having a continuing nuclear programme. After all, I remind my hon. Friend that Iraq did not exactly volunteer the existence of its nuclear programme in 1991 and onwards. It took defections before it did so. Dr. el-Baradei's report goes on to say:
	"However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence, if it emerges, relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials."
	And they have not closed the dossier either.

David Tredinnick: When the Prime Minister came before the Liaison Committee recently, I asked him about the situation in Iraq if there was a war and what British forces would be doing afterwards. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that it is quite likely that British forces would assume a disproportionate amount of the burden in a post-war Iraq? Can he further confirm that it is a commonly held view that one of the greatest failings of this Government has been their inability to sell their policy on Iraq to the people and to their Back Benchers?

Jack Straw: British forces, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has reminded me—I apologise, as I did not hear the end of the hon. Gentleman's question—will of course be available to share the burden of securing the peace as well as the burden of fighting in any military action that is required.

James Purnell: I welcome the work that the Foreign Secretary continues to do on the middle east peace process, particularly his commitment to security as well as a viable state for the Palestinians. However, does he agree that a more democratic regime in Iraq, given Saddam Hussein's role in funding suicide bombing, would make peace in the middle east more likely, not less likely?

Jack Straw: I agree absolutely. While there has been speculation about the extent to which the Iraqi regime funds some terrorist organisations, there is no doubt at all about the fact that it has been funding and training rejectionist terrorist regimes operating in Israel and the occupied territories.

Jenny Tonge: Despite the damage that the USA and the Government have already inflicted on the United Nations and the European Union, the Foreign Secretary now claims to be going down the United Nations route. Does that mean that he has dropped the concept of an unreasonable veto?

Jack Straw: Oh God! I do not know what to say to the hon. Lady except that sometimes I give up with the Liberal Democrats. I just say through you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not know what she thinks we have been doing for the past five months if not going down the United Nations route.

David Winnick: If war comes, it will be the responsibility of Saddam Hussein, but is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would wish to see the United States play an active role in a peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis leading to a viable Palestinian state—a state no less viable than Israel itself? Is the United States willing to play such a role?

Jack Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the United States is willing to play such a role, but we wish to continue—I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this—to push the United States for the earlier publication of the road map, which is in the interests of the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as wider security in the region.

John Baron: What is the Foreign Secretary's response to the increasing weight of legal opinion, both at home and abroad, that suggests that there is little that resolution 1441 in its own right can do to justify war against Iraq?

Jack Straw: I have already given a detailed response in which I referred to 1441, going back to 687 and 678. I should also like to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government will always act, have always acted, and continue always to act within their obligations in international law. Nothing that we do will be contrary to those obligations.

Andrew MacKinlay: Can I take the Foreign Secretary back to his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) a few moments ago? Can I tell my right hon. Friend, as I did in the Foreign Affairs Committee the other week, that he is too generous to the United States, which is being tardy in relation to the Quartet's road map on the resolution of the conflict between Palestine and Israel? We must ask him to use his good efforts and contacts to make it abundantly clear that the House of Commons expects the United States to get a move on and be proactive, as it is not at the moment. Finally, all of us who support and sustain the Front Bench believe in the basic elementary concept in the British constitution of Cabinet collective responsibility, and I hope that he will take that back to his right hon. Friends—there must be no more of the nonsense that we had last night on the radio.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Jack Straw: Thank you very much. I agree with my hon. Friend's last point, and I also agree with his first point. I do not think that I am being too generous to the United States. I am sometimes too generous to the Liberal Democrats, but that is a different matter. It is important that there should be maximum understanding in Washington about the impatience of Members on both sides of the House and in all parties for the road map to be published and I shall be very happy to pass that point on.

Robert Walter: The House will be pleased that the Foreign Secretary had discussions with the Secretary-General on the humanitarian consequences. Sixty per cent. of the Iraqi people are totally dependent for their food on the oil-for-food programme, which costs about $5 billion in any six-month period. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us who is going to feed the Iraqi people following the outbreak of a conflict, if there is no oil to pay for the food and no Iraqi Government to distribute it?

Jack Straw: The Iraqi people will be fed, let me make that clear. There is money in the escrow accounts in the United Nations to pay for that. This has been a matter of the most intense discussion in Washington by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, by me and by many others, to ensure the absolute imperative that, while the conflict lasts, the Iraqi people are properly fed. The fact that 60 per cent. of them are dependent on the oil-for-food programme is but one further indication of the desperate nature of this regime.

George Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that for many Labour Members—and, indeed, for many people in the country—the key to unlocking the support for military intervention in Iraq is a second UN resolution? Does he also accept that if there are to be exceptional circumstances, it will be necessary that everyone fully understands exactly what those circumstances are and why they are important? I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could give the House an undertaking on that.

Jack Straw: I would say to my hon. Friend, whose position on this matter I greatly respect, that of course I understand the great preference that we all have for a second resolution, and the political desirability of such a resolution, because it would represent clear consensus in the international community. I have dealt with the issue of the legal base. What I want to aim for is the passing of that second resolution, and for that reason—with respect to my hon. Friend—I do not want to get drawn into issues of where we go. It might be helpful if I point out that the position adopted by Her Majesty's Government is identical to the position adopted by the Labour party in a statement by the relevant policy commission dated 27 January.

Mark Simmonds: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that there will be a debate and a vote on a substantive motion immediately after the vote of the UN Security Council on the second resolution?

Jack Straw: Yes. If there is a vote and the matter comes to a conclusion, I am sure that the usual channels will arrange that. For the record, I enter the usual caveat that the only circumstances in which that could not take place would be if we thought that the safety of our troops would be put at risk. I also hope that hon. Members have some faith in the Government's record on coming to the House immediately there is anything to discuss here.

Oona King: Is it not the case that Israel has flouted UN resolutions, invaded its neighbours' territory and developed weapons of mass destruction without provoking any rebuke at all from George W. Bush, and that, despite George Bush using the words "viable Palestinian state", he has done nothing to make it a reality? What further pressure can the Government bring to bear on the American Administration, and what will we be pushing for, other than a speedier publication of the road map?

Jack Straw: It is certainly true that Israel is in breach of a number of Security Council resolutions, but so too are the Arab states—it is a point that I have made often enough. I understand the debating point, although it is more than that, that is made here, but there is a difference between the resolutions in respect of Israel and Palestine, all of which ought to be implemented, but which impose complex obligations on a series of parties—the Palestinians, Israel and the Arab states—and the unilateral mandatory obligations imposed on Iraq under chapter VII.
	At the risk of being castigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I am afraid that I do not accept that the United States Government have "done nothing". As it happens, they have moved the policy on within the UN further than even the Clinton Administration, because they moved what became resolution 1397 and then resolution 1402, providing for the first time for there to be Security Council policy laying down that there must be a viable Palestinian state.
	What we now have to do—we continue to press for it, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does so particularly—is, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), make a reality of that much better policy. That is what we are doing.

James Clappison: Is there not a real danger that Saddam Hussein might seek to widen a conflict, as he did in the first Gulf war when he launched 39 Scud missiles at Israel? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that there is an overriding need for all parties in the region to exercise restraint and that everything possible must be done to protect all those who live there from the evil predations of Saddam Hussein?

Jack Straw: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman.

Ann Clwyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what I thought was a robust and passionate speech that he made at the UN, but may I ask him why the case is not being made that there are strong grounds to intervene in Iraq on human rights grounds alone, as we intervened in Kosovo and Sierra Leone. I listen to spokesperson after spokesperson, and I remember resolution 688, which called for an end to repression of the public in Iraq, but the end to repression has not taken place. In fact, torture, ethnic cleansing and executions go on every day of the week in Iraq.

Jack Straw: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what she said and, if I may say so, the very robust way in which she has prosecuted the case against Saddam Hussein on humanitarian as well as wider security grounds. There is, of course, a strong humanitarian case against Saddam Hussein. We concentrate on disarmament because of our subscription to international law. The basis for any military action in the region will be implementation of resolution 1441 and its predecessors, but of course my hon. Friend is right to imply that a consequence of that will be freeing the Iraqi people from the terrible burden and humanitarian catastrophe that is the Saddam Hussein regime.

Simon Thomas: Will the Foreign Secretary please remind the House exactly of which part of resolution 1441 authorises war? Can he point to a similar resolution with the same wording under which war has been prosecuted and say which of the 37 UK Government vetoes were used unreasonably, and which uses of the veto by other countries were unreasonable?

Jack Straw: I am delighted to do so. We start with paragraph 1, which says that the Security Council
	"Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 . . . in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687".
	We then go to paragraph 4, in which the Security Council
	"Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations"—
	obligations of which it is now in breach. We then turn to operative paragraph 13, in which the Security Council
	"Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".
	The text of all those paragraphs is available in the Vote Office.

Robert Wareing: Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House how the raining of death upon innocent men, women and children can be an acceptable alternative to a policy of containment that is working? Will he listen to the people of this country, who are fed up and tired of him appeasing the United States and the hawks in the White House?

Jack Straw: If I thought that there was a viable policy of containment that could work to ensure Saddam's disarmament I would support it, but that is palpably not the case. It is still possible for this matter to be resolved peacefully, but sadly that is Saddam's choice, not ours. With respect, I remember my hon. Friend saying something similar against military action in Kosovo. In the end, that proved necessary and was also right.

George Osborne: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the International Development Secretary's description of the Prime Minister's policy as "reckless"? If not, has collective Cabinet responsibility broken down?

Jack Straw: Like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I believe that the policy that Her Majesty's Government are following is right.

Alice Mahon: Have the Government estimated the number of civilian casualties there will be if the war against Iraq takes place and 800 cruise missiles are targeted on Baghdad, as spelled out in the US war plan "Shock and Awe"? Has my right hon. Friend drawn up contingency plans for the plight of the children, when they are subjected to such terror bombing with weapons of mass destruction?

Jack Straw: If there is military action, people will be killed, and some of them will be innocent. In any case, I do not even want guilty people to be killed unless that proves absolutely necessary. That is the nature of military action. I respect the pacifist tradition, but I do not support it. Unless we are pacifists, we have to acknowledge, as does the United Nations charter, that military action is sometimes necessary in pursuit of a greater good. It is my belief that if military action proves necessary the prime responsibility for that will be on Saddam's head. Although sadly people will be killed, the number of people saved by military action will greatly exceed the number killed.

John Gummer: The Foreign Secretary has helpfully characterised the second resolution as a mechanism for ensuring that there is no lack of clarity, and that there is no lack of a date or timetable to pressurise Saddam Hussein, because he will know that at that moment he will reap the whirlwind. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, irrespective of the result of the United Nations vote, neither the United Kingdom nor the United States will pre-empt that timetable?

Jack Straw: I have to speak for the United Kingdom Government: I do not speak for the United States Government, as I made clear in a television programme yesterday. I repeat the undertakings that I have given before, which are there for all to see. We have repeatedly come to the House, and we have introduced proper, substantive votes on these resolutions. That is entirely appropriate. Subject to the caveat that I have entered about the safety of troops, we will come back immediately there is anything to report—as I have done today, even though there is no conclusion to the current Security Council considerations—and when there is a substantive result or lack of result.

Tony Clarke: Recently, the Prime Minister and President Bush have been dismissive of any use of the veto in the Security Council on a second resolution, yet on the Israel/Palestine question the USA has used its veto 34 times in the past 30 years. Given the USA's poor record on using its veto, is the Foreign Secretary happy about British support for military action in the face of a veto after a second resolution?

Jack Straw: Our preference is clearly to get a second resolution, and plainly we can get that only without a veto. On many occasions, I have had to say that we reserve our rights as to what judgments we make if we cannot get a second resolution, but of course I understand that the authority of the United Nations will be one of the important considerations that we will have to take into account in any difficult decisions we then have to make.

Michael Portillo: I have registered an interest.
	What future does the Foreign Secretary believe NATO can possibly have now that the Foreign Secretary's good friend, dear Dominique, is touring Africa canvassing opinion against France's NATO allies, the United States and the United Kingdom?

Jack Straw: I think that it has an interesting future. It certainly has a future—I am clear about that. These institutions, which have served, in the case of NATO, the western alliance and, in the case of the United Nations, the whole world, so well over the past 60 years are too robust to be undermined too far by temporary problems. We must all have a care, however, to ensure that those institutions continue to operate effectively.

Louise Ellman: I commend the very hard work that lies behind the Foreign Secretary's statement. Is he concerned, however, that the joint organiser of the anti-war marches and demonstrations is the Muslim Association of Britain, with its associations with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, who are committed as a religious requirement to the annihilation of the state of Israel?

Jack Straw: I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about that. I have to say to her that in a free, democratic country, unlike Iraq, people come together in broad alliances to organise marches. I know from my long experience of being on marches that one sometimes finds oneself with the most curious of marching companions.

David Chidgey: The Foreign Secretary says in his statement that he profoundly hopes that the Iraqi regime will, even at this late stage, seize the chance to disarm peacefully. I am sure that we all recognise that sentiment. However, the right hon. Gentleman has also said on several occasions that it is in fact impossible to find Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in a country the size of France without his support and without his offering them up for verification. So my question is: what is the yardstick? Should the event arise whereby he does offer to disarm, how do we measure his compliance? Is it against the list that we had in 1998 or the future projection? How can we be sure that he has actually disarmed should he offer to do so?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises a really important question, which I touched on, but only lightly, in my statement. There are two issues here: first, how one measures whether Saddam has, over a matter of days, come into compliance; then, when and if he has come into compliance, how one measures whether he has disarmed completely. One measures whether he has come into compliance on whether he is co-operating with the 29 separate clusters set out in this very detailed UNMOVIC report. As I indicated in my statement, we are discussing whether some of those can be distilled into a few possible markers or tests by which the Security Council would be able to make a judgment about whether there was compliance.
	To take the issue of interviews, for example, anybody who feels that they should give the Iraqi regime the benefit of the doubt need only to look at the record in this report and in the successive reports of Dr. Blix and Dr. el-Baradei concerning the point-blank refusal of the Iraqi regime to facilitate any free interviews outside Iraq whatsoever, notwithstanding the very clear requirements of 1441. So if they were suddenly to say, "Yes, we are going to comply with that and co-operate", and the relevant people appeared, and their relatives and friends were not murdered, that would be one indicator among a number. If we got to that point, the inspectors would go in and could have the time that they needed—I made that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). It would then be a matter of the inspectors saying, "Well, we have gone through each of these areas of the dossier and each of these clusters of issues, and they have dealt with what is required of them over a period of time." First, however, they have got to show that they are in compliance.

Peter Kilfoyle: Rather than cherry-pick the bits of the reports that bolster what is, to many of us, a wholly unconvincing Government case, and further to the question by the Father of the House, will the Foreign Secretary now confirm that the forged evidence on uranium purchases that was submitted to the IAEA was provided by the United Kingdom? Will he also confirm, given his comments on anthrax as an alleged biological weapon in Iraq, that the anthrax was provided by the United States, as set out in Senator Riegle's report?

Jack Straw: I have to say gently to my hon. Friend that I do not know quite where he is coming from, because the Iraqis had an illegal nuclear weapons programme that they did not initially disclose. Far from cherry-picking the report, I felt it my duty to make clear the burden of what Dr. el-Baradei was saying, which I duly did. For information on anthrax, my hon. Friend needs to read section a. in chapter IV, on biological clusters, of the lengthy report. There, set out in detail, he will see the charges against the Iraqi regime. Contrary to Iraq's assertions that no other facilities had been used to produce anthrax, UNSCOM found evidence of anthrax in two places. Details of that are given. The report says:
	"Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist."
	As far as I know, that anthrax did not come from the United States. However, even if it did, while it would have been wrong of the United States to supply it, it would have been even worse of Iraq, in complete defiance of the United Nations, to continue to hang on to it and to maintain facilities to produce it.

Patrick McLoughlin: How does the Foreign Secretary expect to get public support when a senior member of the Cabinet has described his policy as "reckless"?

Jack Straw: We have had that question. [Hon. Members: "Answer."] The answer is that I would describe the policy that we are following as fully in accordance with United Nations policy, and right.

David Cairns: Is one of my right hon. Friend's grounds for optimism the repeated findings of opinion polls of ordinary Israeli citizens that show that 70 per cent. or more of them consistently support a two-state settlement, including the removal of most, if not all, of the settlements? Given that fact, should the United States not move forward with that process? Far from abandoning Israel, as some have claimed it would be doing—and which I do not want it to do—the United States will be ensuring that the will of ordinary Israeli citizens comes to pass.

Jack Straw: I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says about Israeli public opinion. However, it also has to be said that Israeli public opinion was expressed in a recent general election, with a slightly different indication in the result. The United States Government have to take account of such indications of public opinion, as do we. What I know for sure is that establishing a democratic Palestinian Authority with sound public administration and good people running it—as we now have—and ensuring that such a move is properly reciprocated by the Israeli Government, are two steps that can lead towards peace in the occupied territories and the beginnings of democracy, and peace in Israel, which is in the interests of both communities.

David Cameron: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, in the event of the House of Commons having a vote on a decision to commit British troops to a war in the Gulf, the Government will treat that vote as an issue of confidence?

Jack Straw: We will treat that vote as the issue laid down in the resolution.

Doug Henderson: If the further resolution fails to obtain a majority, or is vetoed in the Security Council, how will my right hon. Friend, in the event that Britain then goes to war, demonstrate to the British public that we are taking the UN route? Is there not a danger that the British public will see that we are in favour of the UN when it suits us, and not when it does not?

Jack Straw: I have already set out to the House our understanding of the legal base for any such action. I know that my hon. Friend has strong opinions on this issue, but if he goes through all the resolutions—from 1441 back to 687 and 678—he will see beyond peradventure why Iraq is in material breach, why the ceasefire provided for by those earlier 1991 resolutions is not operative, and why serious consequences may follow. I repeat that our preference is for a second resolution. That is what we are working to achieve.

John Wilkinson: Is it not the case that UN resolution 1441 gives all the criteria and more against which to set the non-compliance of the Iraqi regime? That being the case, may I say to the Foreign Secretary that he should not be dissuaded by any outcome over a second resolution in the event that French diplomacy, for example, is successful? Should he not bear in mind the fact that President Mugabe was recently fêted and hosted by the French Government, and that the French Government are in danger of looking like a friend of murderous dictators?

Jack Straw: I am very clear that the Government of France have no better opinion of the Iraqi regime than we do. They supported 1441 and said back in November that Iraq was in material breach of it. The issue between us is not whether it is a hateful regime, but how we deal with that hateful regime. I regret the position that the French Government have taken on the merits, because that is less likely, not more likely, to lead to a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

David Hamilton: May I push the Minister on the following point? Time and time again he refers to how we must support the United Nations, but if one, two or three permanent members reject and veto our position—or, indeed, if a majority are against us—will we still go ahead with America and the conflict in Iraq?

Jack Straw: I spelled out the background to, and the legal base and details of, 1441. The Security Council of the United Nations is a political institution. We are working to achieve a second resolution. We have to reserve our position on what decisions we may take if we cannot achieve that, but we will not make those decisions unless and until we have to face them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ESTIMATES

Resolved,
	That this House agrees with the Report [6th March] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Orders of the Day

Local Government Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Valuation: Conflicts Between Judicial and Administrative Matters

'In the event of any conflict between the Valuation Tribunal Service and a valuation tribunal over what is an administrative matter within the jurisdiction of the former and what is a judicial or other matter within the jurisdiction of the latter, the Service, a valuation tribunal or its president may request the President of the Council on Tribunals to appoint a qualified person to arbitrate between them and he shall do so.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 2—Valuation tribunals: immunity—
	'A member of a Valuation Tribunal or a clerk officiating at a tribunal hearing shall not be liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as a tribunal member unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith.'.
	Amendment No. 1, in clause 105, page 60, line 17, leave out 'of, and clerks to' and insert—
	'and staff of (including clerks to)'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have just 24 minutes in which to discuss four major groups of amendments. We must get to grips with timetable motions. The way in which the Government's business managers have handled the timetabling of the Bill is an utter disgrace to democratic debate in the House.
	New clause 1 is relatively technical and relates to the Valuation Tribunal Service. Perhaps it will help if I explain how the system works. In contrast, the Valuation Office Agency is an Executive agency of the Inland Revenue. It has 85 offices spread throughout England and Wales and employs about 4,000 people. It operates under a framework document agreed with Treasury Ministers and reviewed every five years. The most recent review is published in its report of 13 September.
	The main function of the VOA is to compile and maintain business rating and council tax valuation lists for England and Wales. The Valuation Tribunal Service is an independent judicial body that has the power to deal with appeals relating to non-domestic rating and council tax. There are 56 valuation tribunals in England. They are independent of the valuation officer and the billing authority. They usually sit with three members, although sometimes with two by agreement, and they have a clerk who is a paid employee of the tribunal and who advises on points of procedural law.
	The valuation tribunals have been subjected to pressure on administrative grounds that sometimes infringes the conduct of their judicial activities. Those pressures come from central organisations, such as the Valuation Tribunal Service. Valuation tribunals want a means of protection against misuse of the word "administrative". It must be remembered that a valuation tribunal is a tax tribunal. It is understandable that an organisation such as the VOA may want procedural ways to make the collection of rates—nowadays a national tax—more efficient, but there is a difference between administrative ways and legal methods of collecting tax. But the VOA is also a party to almost all non-domestic rating cases heard by the valuation tribunals, which must act with judicial impartiality between the parties—the VOA and the taxpayers.
	New clause 1 deals with the conflicts that may arise. An officer of the valuation tribunal management board, the existing precursor of the Valuation Tribunal Service, issued a valuation tribunal guidance note, No. 5, criticising a tribunal's reasons for its decision, which can be appealed against in the High Court and the Lands Tribunal, and advocating that valuation tribunals should not comment on the legislation that they were reviewing. The valuation tribunal, which consists of three people acting in a voluntary capacity, had said that by law it must decide against the appellant, but pointed out that the legislation unduly restricted appeals. By issuing that guidance, the Executive was purporting to tell the judiciary what it should say, and that has not been accepted since 1688. The guidance was ignored, but is still remembered.
	New clause 1 states that, in the event of any conflict between the Valuation Tribunal Service and a valuation tribunal over what is an administrative matter within the jurisdiction of the former and what is a judicial or other matter within the jurisdiction of the latter, a qualified person will be appointed to arbitrate between them. It makes sense that there must be a satisfactory way of resolving conflicts between the different parts of the valuation system.
	For administrative convenience, I shall deal with amendment No. 1 before new clause 2. The amendment corrects what appears to be a simple drafting error in the Bill. The word "clerk" has two meanings. It can mean the principal officer of a whole valuation tribunal, who should be a member of the IRRV—the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation—which is the independent examination board and a professional body, not a trade union, but most professional clerks are not members. Some were in post before the professional exams came into existence and some did not bother to take them. That is being attended to, but in the meantime there is the old core. The number of such clerks is decreasing as tribunals are grouped for administrative purposes.
	Then there is a second type of clerk. As I said, each hearing is heard by three voluntary tribunal members, and a clerk in the second sense. It may be a clerk in the first sense, but it is more usually a tribunal tabling officer qualified to be a clerk in the first sense, but who is not one. They may or may not be IRRV-qualified, but it is important that they should be so qualified. The management board will pay all the fees and allow time off for staff to encourage them to train. The wording in line 14, which includes other staff, is right, but the wording in line 17 leaves out other staff. That is clearly a drafting error. I hope that the Government will accede to our amendment No. 1, if not to new clauses 1 and 2.
	New clause 2 relates to members' liability. Members of tribunals are protected by judicial immunity at common law. Section 29(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 states:
	"An arbitrator is not liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as arbitrator unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith."
	Clearly, if he has acted in bad faith, he should be liable. As that applies to an arbitrator, why does it not apply to the three members of a valuation tribunal? It is far better for that to be enshrined in statute than for it to be part of common law.

David Borrow: Can the hon. Gentleman give examples in which the new clause has been needed, and in which the system has not worked correctly, that would give reason to amend the law as he suggests?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The matter was brought to our attention by the National Association of Valuation Tribunals. Although it has not supplied me with specific examples, there have no doubt been such examples, or it would not have urged me to press the matter. The hon. Gentleman, who has professional experience in this field, may have such examples, although I do not know whether he supports the new clause.
	I was interrupted while reading out our new clause, which states:
	"A member of a Valuation Tribunal or a clerk"—
	let us remember that some clerks can operate in a voluntary capacity, too—
	"officiating at a tribunal hearing shall not be liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as a tribunal member unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith."
	As the House can see, the wording of the new clause does not reinvent the wheel but is simply lifted from the Arbitration Act 1996 as it applies to arbitrators, who often act in a voluntary capacity, although they are sometimes paid. There seems no reason at all why members of the valuation tribunal, who nearly always act in a voluntary capacity, should not have that immunity enshrined in statute rather than having to rely on immunity in common law. I await with interest what the Minister has to say.

Edward Davey: The Liberal Democrats support the new clauses and amendment tabled by Conservative Members. We, too, have been contacted by the National Association of Valuation Tribunals, which set out the reason behind its wish to see the error in clause 105(2)(a)(v) corrected, and the addition of the two new clauses: to sort out the conflicts between judicial and administrative matters, and to clarify once and for all the issue of immunity.
	Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I obtained a further briefing from the association, including examples, which I could quote at length. It was produced by a learned counsel, Ronald Barham, and discusses at length why the association thinks that the changes are necessary. I will not quote it, however, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) has an important set of amendments to consider, as do we, and I do not want to take up the House's time further. I hope that the Minister will give the new clauses and the amendment fair wind.

Christopher Leslie: Valuation tribunals are extremely important to the operation of council tax and business rates across the country. Part 8 of the Bill creates a new Valuation Tribunal Service, a non-departmental public body, to be the employer of all valuation tribunal staff and to improve customer service delivery. The new service will not, however, interfere with the judicial decision-making function of valuation tribunals. We believe that it is important to create the new body to strengthen the identity and capacity of valuation tribunals, spread best practice across them, and give them increased independence. We anticipate it coming into force from around April 2004, which is a significant move that is widely welcomed by local government and those in the Valuation Tribunal Service.
	New clause 1 proposes a statutory duty for the president of the Council on Tribunals to, if asked, appoint somebody to arbitrate between the new Valuation Tribunal Service and valuation tribunals over what is or is not a judicial or administrative matter. The Valuation Tribunal Service, as we envisage it, would give advice only on procedure in relation to proceedings. Clause 105(2)(b) sets out that that will be the case. Disputes will, in our view, be so rare and minor that it would be entirely disproportionate to have a whole convoluted resolution mechanism, especially were it included in the Bill. In any case, valuation tribunals will be governed by the law and the Valuation Tribunal Service cannot force valuation tribunals to follow its advice.
	The new burden that new clause 1 would place on the president of the Council on Tribunals is unnecessary and out of proportion, not least because, as far as I am aware, there is no such post; the Council on Tribunals has a chairman, currently Lord Newton of Braintree. However, to be helpful and conciliatory, the Government are considering drafting an agreed dispute resolution procedure in the new Valuation Tribunal Service management statement to address any points as they may arise. With that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw new clause 1.
	New clause 2 would ensure that members or clerks of valuation tribunals would not be liable for the reasonable consequences of their duties. There is no need for that new clause. Those who hold judicial office in this country have public policy immunity from acts of negligence in any case and similar protection already extends to members and clerks of valuation tribunals through the standard procedures governing the relationship between any non-departmental public body and sponsor Departments, and there are other protections as well.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: There may be protection at common law, but that is difficult to enforce. If the Minister accepts the principle, will he explain why immunity should not be enshrined in legislation?

Christopher Leslie: The reason is that there is no need to do so, as all judicial office holders already automatically have public policy immunity. It would be inconsistent for us to enshrine such an arrangement in the Bill, but not to do so for the other judicial posts that exist in our constitution. In any case, Departments usually and typically give an undertaking that they will indemnify members, as well as staff, of valuation tribunals against personal civil liability incurred in the execution of official functions provided that they have not acted irresponsibly. That gives adequate protection, so new clause 2 is not necessary.
	Finally, amendment No. 1 would change clause 105(2)(a)(v), so that the list of functions and services provided by the Valuation Tribunal Service would not just include training for members of, and clerks to, tribunals, but instead explicitly allow training for members and staff of tribunals, including clerks to tribunals. Staff training is, of course, essential to the Valuation Tribunal Service in carrying out duties under clause 105 to secure the efficient and independent operation of valuation tribunals.
	Clause 105(4) explicitly says that the Valuation Tribunal Service can do anything to facilitate those functions, so staff training is covered adequately by the wording of that clause. However, we want to be helpful today to expedite business, and I have looked carefully at amendment No. 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Perhaps despite the eloquence of his argument, I believe that we must make it clear that staff are essential and important from the very outset and that there may be benefits in making it explicit that staff must be included in the training provision, so I am happy to say on this rare, but important occasion that the Government are happy to accept amendment No. 1.

Joan Walley: In view of what the Minister says about accepting amendment No. 1, will he look closely at amendment No. 63, tabled in my name, which I do not think we will have an opportunity to discuss, and perhaps return to me with similarly favourable comments?

Christopher Leslie: If we reach that stage, I will listen carefully to my hon. Friend's arguments.
	I urge the hon. Member for Cotswold to withdraw new clause 1 and not to press new clause 2 for the reasons that I have given, but we can accept amendment No. 1.

Peter Lilley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the debate, but I want to make an important point. The Foreign Secretary has just made a statement in which he based his case on a document entitled, "Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes", which was produced by UNMOVIC. He said that copies of the document had been placed in the Library and he commended it to all hon. Members. He said that it set out in 173 pages of painstaking detail the terrible nature of Saddam's weapons.
	I have just been to the Library and asked for a copy. I was told that I could not have a copy to take away but would have to sit and read all 173 pages in the Library. This is a very important document: it is the basis on which war may be declared within days. It is impossible for us to queue up and read it in the Library, but we do not have permission to take it away to our rooms. I would be grateful if you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could have words with the Library or with the Foreign Office, so that copies are made available and so that, as the Foreign Secretary said, all hon. Members may have access to the document.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ministers are responsible for the statements that they make in the House and for making sure that what they say is carried out. The Library will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's point of order, as will the whole House. No doubt, the Library will take note of the situation. I hope that the problem will be remedied.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I assume that the Minister has concluded his remarks, but I hope that he will intervene to provide me with further clarification. He said that he would accept the principle of amendment No. 1. Does that mean that he will table an amendment in another place?

Christopher Leslie: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before the Minister intervenes on that, will he clarify another matter? I believe that he inadvertently referred to clause 105(2)(a)(iv) instead of to sub-paragraph (v). Will he ensure that the provisions in sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v) are consistent? Clarification would be helpful.

Christopher Leslie: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am happy to accept amendment No. 1. That means that we will support it despite his arguments. I realise that that is a great achievement for him.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for small mercies. We had half a loaf in Committee; now we have a full loaf. Before I say anything else, I refer to the fact that I am a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and declare certain property interests that may be affected by the Bill.
	I apologise to the House for the incorrect drafting of new clause 1. There is no such person as the
	"President of the Council on Tribunals".
	The new clause should have referred to the chairman and, had it done so, I would certainly have pressed it to a vote. Because it is incorrectly drafted, I shall not, but instead seek to press new clause 2. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Valuation Tribunals: Immunity

'A member of a Valuation Tribunal or a clerk officiating at a tribunal hearing shall not be liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as a tribunal member unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 295.

Question accordingly negatived.
	It being after Five o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [25 February] put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 105
	 — 
	The Valuation Tribunal Service

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 60, line 17, leave out 'of, and clerks to' and insert
	'and staff of (including clerks to)'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]

Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House may need to be aware that as amendments and new clauses have fallen, neither the Committee nor the House has debated five areas of part 8, chapter 1, which includes important clauses on charging and trading, which will leave many people in local government very disappointed. Have you been approached by any representatives of the Government about making more time available to debate those clauses?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the fact that the House has been unable to debate those matters. Unfortunately those matters have already been decided by the House in its programme motion, and there is nothing that the Chair can do about that at this stage.

New Clause 11
	 — 
	Repeal of Section 2A of Local Government Act 1986

'The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament within 24 months of the coming into force of section 119 and at intervals of 24 months thereafter a report containing information on the effect of the operation of that section on—
	(a) the adherence to guidance issued under section 403(1A) of the Education Act 1996 (c. 96);
	(b) the operation of the provisions of section 404 of that Act; and
	(c) the numbers of parents withdrawing their children from sex education pursuant to section 405 of that Act.'.—[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in line 7, leave out 'and'.
	Amendment (b) to the proposed new clause, in line 9, at end add,
	'; and
	(d) the operation of guidance issued in relation to section 403(1A) of that Act in relation to bodies established by local authorities pursuant to section 508(2) of that Act.'.
	New clause 17—Sex or relationship education in facilities established pursuant to s508(2) of Education Act 1996—
	'.—A local authority may not provide financial support to any facilities established pursuant to s508 (2) of the Education Act 1996 unless that local authority is satisfied that any sex or relationship education or guidance offered within that facility complies with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State pursuant to s403 (1A) of that Act.'.
	New clause 21—Presentation of issues of sexual morality—
	'In the Local Government Act 1986 (c. 10) there is inserted after section 2—
	"Issues of sexual morality
	2Z (1) The local authority, in the exercise of any of its functions in relation to people under the age of eighteen years, shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that where issues relating to the morality of sex outside of marriage are brought to the attention of persons under the age of eighteen who are—
	(a) in attendance at a maintained school, or
	(b) taking part in extracurricular activities which are provided or organised for registered pupils at the school by or on behalf of the school
	they are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views.
	(2) In this section "maintained school" includes a maintained special school established in a hospital.".'.
	Amendment No. 8, in page 70, line 41, leave out Clause 119.
	Amendment No. 14, in page 110 [Schedule 7] leave out lines 27 and 28.
	Amendment No. 15, in page 110, line 29 [Schedule 7], leave out 'Sections 28 and' and insert 'Section'.
	Amendment No. 16, in page 111 [Schedule 7], leave out line 41.
	Amendment No. 17, in page 112 [Schedule 7], leave out lines 2 and 3.
	Amendment No. 18, in page 112 [Schedule 7], leave out lines 20 and 21.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 72, line 34 [Clause 125], leave out '115 and 119' and insert 'and 115'.
	Amendment No. 11, in page 72 [Clause 125], leave out lines 38 and 39.
	Amendment No. 12, in page 73 [Clause 125], leave out lines 3 to 5.
	Amendment No. 13, in page 73 [Clause 125], leave out line 8.
	Amendment No. 37, in page 73, line 9 [Clause 125], at end insert—
	'(2A) Section 119 shall come into force two months after the day on which the Secretary of State certifies that—
	(a) appropriate guidance has been issued under section 403(1A) of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56); and
	(b) an appropriate mechanism has been established for consulting parents of registered pupils by ballot about the contents of any written statement made in pursuance of section 404(1)(a) of that Act.'.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Many misapprehensions and misnomers have been expressed on the subject of repealing so-called section 28, and it may help the House if I go through the current legal position on sex education in schools. Let me say at the outset that the Conservative party regards these as matters of conscience. We will therefore have completely free votes on the whole of this part of the Bill. I urge Ministers and spokesmen for other parties to confirm when they reply to the debate whether the same procedure will apply to their colleagues.
	This debate is entirely about protecting our children in schools. All of us can argue about the content of sex education, but few would argue that there should be no sex education at all. The question is simply how it should be carried out. The question is important, especially in the light of some of the statistics that I shall give on unwanted teenage pregnancies.
	Let me set out the legal history. As everyone knows, section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 inserted new section 2A into the Local Government Act 1986. The words of the provision are well known by many hon. Members, but it is worth quoting them. New section 2A states:
	"(1) A local authority shall not—
	(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
	(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship."
	Subsection (2) is important. It states:
	"Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease."
	Parliament then passed the Education Act 1996, clause 403 of which states:
	"The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall"—
	I shall paraphrase—take steps to ensure that sex education is given in such a manner as to encourage pupils to have due regard to the moral considerations and the value of family life. Few would argue with that. That Act, in section 404(1)(a), provided for a written statement to be made and kept up to date, and it defined a maintained school. Importantly, section 405 provided the statutory basis for exemption, stating:
	"If the parent of any pupil in attendance at a maintained school requests that he may be wholly or partly excused from receiving sex education at the school, the pupil shall, except so far as such education is comprised in the National Curriculum, be so excused accordingly until the request is withdrawn."
	Any parent who is not happy with any of the sex education provided at any maintained school may withdraw their child from that sex education at the school in so far is it does not form part of the national curriculum. That is clearly enshrined in legislation, and it is an important safeguard.
	The Learning and Skills Act 2000 is important to sex education in schools, too, because it modifies section 403 of the Education Act 1996 by inserting new subsection (1A), which states:
	"The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools—
	(a) they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children, and
	(b) they are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned."
	New subsection (1B) provides that
	"In discharging their functions under subsection (1) governing bodies and head teachers must have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance."
	It is important to note that section 148(3) specifically omits the words "local education authority". Colleagues can see that sex education in schools and guidance are now the responsibility of the governing body and the head teacher, not of the local authority as defined under section 2A of the Local Government Act 1988. In a sense, section 28 has become something of a misnomer in law.
	The guidance extends to about 30 pages and was issued in July 2000 under reference DfEE 0116/2000. If any colleague has not read it, I would urge him or her to do so. I think that it is written in a moderate, balanced and sensible way. When we debate new clause 11, it will be seen that one of the main planks of our policy is to enshrine this guidance even more strongly in statute than it is now.

Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend accept that no matter how clear or unclear the guidance may be, the effect of section 28 is to stop teachers trying to prevent homophobic bullying? It means that many schools cannot explain effectively what homosexuality is all about. In this modern day and age, there needs to be openness in schools, as in society in general.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree with the last sentence of my hon. Friend's intervention. There must be complete openness in schools. I think that colleagues will recognise, when I quote relatively selectively from the guidance, how well written it is. If it is strictly adhered to, I cannot see that there would be a great problem with sex education in schools. The problem comes when some of the things to which my hon. Friend alluded happen. I shall come back to that, but first I shall concentrate for a moment on the guidance.
	Colleagues will have noted that new clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to
	"lay before Parliament within 24 months of the coming into force of section 119"—
	that is, the section that abolishes section 2A—a report about
	"the adherence to guidance",
	about
	"the operation of the provisions of section 404"—
	that is, the written statements and materials—and about
	"the numbers of parents withdrawing their children from sex education pursuant to section 405",
	which I have already read out. If colleagues vote for the Bill to remain as it was when it emerged from consideration in Committee—that is, in the absence of section 2A—we want to see some strengthening of the position.
	I shall quote from the guidance. It is introduced by three points, and starts by saying:
	"Sex and relationship education should be firmly rooted in the framework for PSHE".
	That means personal social health education. It continues:
	"Effective sex and relationship education is essential if young people are to make responsible and well informed decisions about their lives . . . The objective of sex and relationship education is to help and support young people through their physical, emotional and moral development . . . The new PSHE framework will help pupils to develop the skills and understanding they need to live confident, healthy and independent lives"—
	in response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), I would almost add "open lives".
	The document continues:
	"It will play an important role, alongside other aspects of the curriculum and school life, in helping pupils deal with difficult moral and social questions."
	It adds:
	"This is the first time that schools have had a national framework to support work in this area. As part of sex and relationship education, pupils should be taught about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children. But the Government recognises . . . that there are strong and mutually supportive relationships outside marriage. Therefore people should learn the significance of marriage and stable relationships as key building blocks of community and society."
	The document also says:
	"Effective sex and relationship education does not encourage early sexual experimentation. It should teach young people to understand human sexuality and to respect themselves and others. It enables young people to mature, to build up their confidence and self-esteem and understand the reasons for delaying sexual activity."
	That is very important; we can begin to see how reasonably written the document is.
	Page 9 says:
	"Materials used in schools must be in accordance with the PSHE framework and the law. Inappropriate images should not be used nor should explicit material not directly related to explanation. Schools should ensure that pupils are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate, having regard to the age and cultural background of the pupils concerned."
	Clearly, what is appropriate at secondary school age would be entirely inappropriate at primary school age. I shall give a few examples that amply demonstrate that.
	The document also says:
	"The Department recommends that all primary schools should have a sex and relationship education programme tailored to the age and the physical and emotional maturity of the children."
	Finally, page 15 of the guidance document says:
	"In England in 1998 there were over 100,000 conceptions to teenagers, of which over 8,000 were to girls under 16".
	Of these teenage pregnancies, 38 per cent.—almost 39,000—ended in abortion. We have to get sex education in schools right.

Kali Mountford: If the hon. Gentleman wants to enshrine that guidance in law, I find it difficult to accept his argument. The guidance gives parents, governing bodies and teachers the flexibility to take account of the very things that he says are important, such as cultural background, age and the religious affiliations of the area. Would it not be difficult to recognise those differences in pupils' culture and religion if the hon. Gentleman tried to enshrine the guidance in law as he suggests?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I take the hon. Lady's point, but it is important that we try to get the subject right. It should be taught on a national basis, and best practice in sex education should be adopted by all schools. One way of achieving that is making sure that the guidance is largely adhered to.
	I shall give the House one or two examples of how things can go wrong. I give the Minister notice that I want to press him on what is meant by the Learning and Skills Act 2000 which, via new section 403(1C) of the Education Act 1996, states:
	"Guidance under subsection (1A) must include guidance about any material which may be produced by NHS bodies for use for the purposes of sex education in schools."
	At the moment the position is very unclear indeed—I shall come back to that in a minute.
	Some of the material produced by health authorities is inappropriate. A rather nasty booklet has been produced by an organisation called PHACE West. I shall not subject the House to its contents except to say that it refers to practices called rimming and scat—I do not know what they mean. PHACE West is partly funded by public funds, and its booklet is available to children as young as 12. Such material is inappropriate for young children. I am pressing the Minister hard for the meaning of subsection (1C), because his colleagues the Education Ministers certainly seem to be unclear about its meaning.
	Another booklet was produced by the Scottish Executive and entirely funded by public funds. I accept that the law in Scotland is slightly different, and shall not subject the House to some rather nasty bits of that booklet. Suffice to say it talks about teaching children aged seven to 11 about anal intercourse, masturbation, all about the clitoris, lesbianism, oral sex and bisexuality. That is another example of where things have gone wrong. Another rather nasty booklet was produced by Avon health authority, but I shall spare the House the gory details. However, we need to know what is meant by health authority guidance in subsection (1C).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has done the House a great service in tabling amendments that demonstrate the ragged edges caused by the Government's getting rid of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. As Conservative spokesman, I have said that the issue is one of freedom of conscience, and shall abstain from voting on my hon. Friend's amendments, to demonstrate strict neutrality on the Front Bench. None the less, there are some ragged edges.

Patrick Cormack: If this is a genuine free vote—and I believe that it is—why should my hon. Friend be inhibited from voting?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am not inhibited from voting one way or another. I just think that it would be wrong, in proposing our compromise new clause—to which I shall now turn—to indicate which way I feel section 2A should go. There will be colleagues who have strong views either way, and I respect those views. I respect the strong views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and I respect my hon. Friends who hold the opposite view. From my own point of view, I shall maintain a strict neutrality and not vote either way.

Nigel Waterson: I am following closely what my hon. Friend is saying and he is making his arguments very carefully and concisely. Does he agree, however, that if examples of this material exist, and if there are clear indications that abuse could occur, and if section 28—as it is colloquially known—is swept away by the Government with Liberal Democrat support, the onus should be on the Government to come up with an alternative method of protecting our children, rather than that being left to the official Opposition?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. I have no idea whether the Government are going to accept my new clauses or not, but if they are not, there needs to be further negotiation. If no such further negotiation takes place, I am sure that our noble Friends and colleagues in another place will wish to take the matter up. I do not expect this to be the last word on the subject.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for our Front-Bench amendments. May I say, however, that the most important single thing to arise out of the case that he has just made is the need for the House to vote on new clause 21—also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough—which specifically identifies the sexualisation of children as the central issue? That issue is independent of homosexuality or heterosexuality, as many of the examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) show. 5.30 pm

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I entirely accept the sincerity of the views that my hon. Friend, and many of my other hon. Friends, hold on this subject. New clause 21 is an excellent new clause; it is very similar to my own new clause 11. Unfortunately, new clause 11 comes first, and I suspect that it will be the first to be voted on. Colleagues might wish to call for other votes, however. I have no idea what they might wish to call for.

Edward Davey: rose—

Brian Iddon: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I move on? I have an important point to make. I challenged the Minister to give the House an answer on the health guidance, and I wish to take that matter further because, having given the House examples that come from health authorities, I believe that there will be a lacuna in the law. We need the Minister to clear this matter up tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) helpfully wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on this subject on 24 January, saying:
	"I cannot, however, find anything within this publication that discharges the Secretary of State's obligation under Subsection 1C."—
	that is the one that I read out—
	"The only reference, so far as I am aware, to the material produced by the NHS is in paragraph 1.8 which indicates that the Department of Health will be issuing guidance to Health Authorities to the effect that any materials developed by them must be in line with DFEE guidance. This does not discharge the obligation under Subsection 1C."
	My hon. Friend received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), on 10 February. The first paragraph states the legal position, as I have done, in relation to how the guidance is enshrined in the Education Act 1996 and exactly what the guidance is. Then, bizarrely, the Minister goes on to say:
	"Materials intended for use in schools should be pre-tested with teachers, parents and governors, to ensure they are acceptable and appropriate. In producing materials for schools, Health Authorities must also have regard for the Department for Education's Sex and Relationship Education Guidance. Copies of the document may be obtained from the Department of Health website".
	We need a much stronger position than that. If the House votes this evening to leave the Bill as it is—that is, to remove section 2A—the Government will need to attend to this matter, and I urge them to use the earliest legislative opportunity to clarify the measure.
	I am going to use an unconventional parliamentary technique—for which you will probably call me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and hand the letter across the Dispatch Box. I ask the Minister to clarify the matter when he sums up.

Brian Iddon: Just for the record, will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether the material that he has been waving about this evening and in Committee is for the use of children, or to prepare teachers in case they get awkward questions from the children? It is important to make clear what the literature is intended for.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman cannot be so naive as to presume that material produced for teachers is not automatically given to the children. One knows what children are like: even if the teacher does not give the material to them directly, it is likely that it will be left lying around and children will get hold of it. Everybody knows that. [Interruption.] Labour Members may make a huge fuss, but what matters is not whether the material is given to the children or the teacher, but the content of the material. If the content is unsuitable, it does not matter whether the children get the material or not. It is unsuitable for children of the age that it is aimed at—full stop. I shall move on.

Edward Davey: I want to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. His hon. Friends will want to know that he did the honourable thing in Committee and voted to get rid of section 28. Therefore, can he explain to the House why he will be neutral and not oppose amendment No. 8 if it is pressed to a vote?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have made my position clear. I will not vote one way or the other if amendment No. 8 is pressed. I shall vote in respect of our compromise proposal. [Interruption.] I have made the position clear, but the hon. Gentleman looks shocked. I can do no more than emphasise what I have said from the Dispatch Box.
	I wish to move on to one or two other aspects that must be considered, because the whole thing is fairly untidy and jagged. Here I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and urge the House to consider not only his amendment No. 8, which has just been referred to by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), but, for a start, my hon. Friend's amendment No. 16, which relates to paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the Education Act 1996, and pupil referral units.
	Through the repeals section of the Bill, the Government are removing paragraph 5, but the problem is that they are not removing paragraph 7, which involves offences relating to section 2A and being able to exclude people from a pupil referral unit. Whatever happens, the Minister must consider that particular jagged edge. This is a serious matter, and amendment No. 16 relates to it. Paragraph 5, entitled "Application of Local Government Act 1986", states:
	"A pupil referral unit is a maintained school for the purposes of section 2A(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition on promoting homosexuality)."
	That is entirely consistent with the Bill as it left Committee and entirely right, but paragraph 8, entitled "Sex education, political indoctrination and political issues", states:
	"Sections 403, 406 and 407 (sex education, political indoctrination, and treatment of political issues) apply in relation to pupil referral units as they apply in relation to county schools."
	It seems to me that leaving in paragraph 8 would be untidy. The Minister shakes his head. That is fine, but perhaps he will explain why it would not be untidy, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough will press that point in addressing amendment No. 16.
	Another of my hon. Friend's proposals, amendment No. 18, would repeal section 104 of the Local Government Act 2000, which says:
	"In section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material), at the end of subsection (2) there is inserted; 'or
	(b) prevent the headteacher or governing body of a maintained school, or a teacher employed by a maintained school, from taking steps to prevent any form of bullying'."
	Bullying, whatever form it takes, is an important matter.
	My hon. Friend has done the House a service. That section will be repealed if the Bill goes through, and we need to know from the Minister what will take its place. Bullying in schools, whether homophobic or whatever else, is a serious matter.

Michael Fallon: The strength of the examples that my hon. Friend has given are not quite reflected in the strength of his new clause 11. Does he intend to say anything about his new clause 17? Merely calling for a report may not improve the situation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I was coming to that. For administrative convenience, I want to deal with amendment No. 37 first; then I shall return to new clause 17.
	Amendment No. 37 is the second part of our compromise. I have already elucidated the first part in some detail, which is to enshrine the guidance in statute. We feel that the guidance, sensible though it is, should not be able to be amended unless it comes before the House as a statutory instrument under the affirmative resolution procedure.
	The second important part of our compromise is that parents should be able to test whether the head teacher and school governing body have adhered to that guidance. We propose that parents should be able to exercise their vote in a ballot if they are dissatisfied with the material and with the written statement under the statute. If at least 5 per cent. of parents so decide, they could trigger a ballot. The majority of parents registered at a school would vote, and if they voted that the material did not conform to the guidance, the head teacher and governing body would have to rewrite it. There would be the possibility of triggering a further ballot, and if parents again voted against the material produced by the school, the default position would be for the Secretary of State to issue his own guidance and statement.
	In that way, the parents in a school would have two safeguards. First, under section 405 of the Education Act 1996, they could withdraw their children from school. Secondly, they could trigger a ballot, and a repeat ballot if they thought that the material produced by the school's governing body or the head teacher did not conform with the guidance. We believe that that is a strong compromise, and I hope that my hon. Friends will see that.

Elfyn Llwyd: If a second ballot were lost by 1 per cent., what would happen next?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is clear. We believe in democracy, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does. If the second ballot were lost even by one vote, the parents would obviously be dissatisfied with the material, so the matter would go to the Secretary of State. That seems to me exactly the right thing to do.
	The final lacuna in the Bill is that section 2A applies only to pupils in maintained schools, as I stated clearly in my longish summing up of the legal position. It emerged in Committee that there is a lacuna, as the provision does not apply to youth clubs. I have referred to the nasty little document that is circulating among children as young as 12 in youth clubs. If section 2A is abolished, there will be nothing in the law to cover that situation.
	It was difficult to make sure that the new clauses would be in order, because we are trying to amend an Education Act by means of a Local Government Bill. We propose that section 508 of the Education Act 1996 should be included in any guidance. I shall give my hon. Friends an idea of what section 508 covers. It provides that a local authority may
	"establish, maintain or manage . . . camps, holiday classes, playing fields, play centres, and . . . other places, including playgrounds, gymnasiums and swimming baths not appropriated to any school or other education institution",
	and may organise games, expeditions and other facilities. So we say, through new clause 17, that it is incredibly important that all facilities and organisations, where they are in any way funded by the local authority, should be brought within the guidance.

Andrew Turner: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the section covers youth clubs?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am as satisfied as I can be in that respect. My hon. Friend brought up the matter in Committee, and I am grateful to him for trying to assist by tabling amendments (a) and (b). He obviously feels that the section would apply to youth clubs.

Kali Mountford: If what the hon. Gentleman describes as a nasty little document is available in youth clubs, why is it not prohibited under section 2A?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Because, as I have tried to explain to the hon. Lady, section 2A applies only to maintained schools. That is precisely the point.

Chris Bryant: So why not vote to get rid of it?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman asks why we do not vote to get rid of it. We have to ensure that safeguards are put in place. If the House votes to get rid of section 2A, as I suspect it will, hon. Members must be aware of the lacunae that will still exist. One of the difficulties that I mentioned to the Minister, who undertook to consider it, is that boys and girls who go to youth clubs when they are relatively young will be left unprotected. That is an unsatisfactory position. If the Bill emerges without any amendments or new clauses, the Government will have to consider that aspect, among others.

David Borrow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I will not give way any more; I have given way enough.
	The Minister needs to address three major issues, apart from the whole issue of sex education and guidance: the material that is produced by health authorities, and how the guidance applies to them; bullying and how to deal with it; and, in particular, youth clubs.
	We are all concerned to protect children and we are having an important debate about that. I suspect that the House will vote to leave the Bill as it is. That means that sex education in schools is moving on, so appropriate safeguards must be in place. The beginnings are there, but substantial problems remain. The compromise measures that we propose in new clauses 11 and 17 and amendment No. 37 would address that situation. I urge hon. Members to vote for them.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I shall talk about only one of the many amendments that are before us—amendment No. 8—for the simple reason that it strikes to the heart of the debate, which essentially concerns the morality of the society in which we live and the way in which we choose to incorporate that into law.
	Every society is constituted by its mores, the pattern of which forms the morality by which we all live our lives. Sometimes those mores are simply customs such as shaking hands or kissing somebody when you greet them; sometimes they are commonly held assumptions that everyone believes that everyone else holds; sometimes they are intellectual assertions that are propounded by teachers, educationists or the authorities of the land, and are often fiercely contested. It is rare, however—at least in modern democratic societies—that those mores are enshrined in law. In the modern world, it tends to be only theocratic states that have retained the enshrinement of mores in law.

Andrew Turner: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by mores, in this context? Many of our morals are enshrined in law—such as, "Thou shalt not kill."

Chris Bryant: I do not want to get into a lengthy discussion on the ten commandments, although they would clearly form part of the mores of any society. However, mores stretch across a wide range of issues. In this country, it might be thought immoral for two men to greet each other by kissing; in Argentina, it would be thought very peculiar for two men to greet each other not by kissing.

David Cairns: I know that my hon. Friend does not want to get into a discourse on the ten commandments—neither do I—but we would not dream of legislating, to bring into law and enshrine in statute, that people had to honour the Sabbath. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that these are complex matters. Does he agree that simply parroting out the ten commandments does not get us anywhere?

Chris Bryant: Indeed. I do not think that any of the ten commandments touch on the matters that we are discussing tonight.
	Often, the mores on which a society's morality is built are based on myths—myths that were held in days gone by but that have subsequently been proven incorrect. The most common myth about homosexuality is that it is a choice—that somebody has chosen to be homosexual. Some people's interpretation of the Old and New Testaments may be that those who have chosen to be homosexual are acting outside the law of God, whereas those who have no choice about their sexuality, and for whom their sexuality is something to be discovered, are not acting outside that law. That view has often been preached by the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the late 20th century and now in the 21st century, most people have accepted that people do not choose to be homosexual but discover that they are homosexual.

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful contribution, but does he accept that the sexual orientation of young children can be influenced, and that sex education can play a part in that?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is tending towards the argument that homosexuality is an illness that can be caught. From experience, I know that the pressures of modern society are so strong that nobody would choose to be homosexual unless they felt that it was absolutely inevitable, that being homosexual was an integral part of who they were, and that they could do no other. For many years—from Jung onwards—psychiatric opinion has contested the idea that homosexuality was an illness that could be cured by aversion therapy, by electric shock treatment and by a whole range of other treatments.

Ann Widdecombe: I want to press the hon. Gentleman on the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). Does the hon. Gentleman accept that teaching a child encompasses an element of influence? Is it not therefore important, when teaching children, that a way of life that—as the hon. Gentleman has just admitted—can cause problems in adult life should not be promoted?

Chris Bryant: The right hon. Lady once told me on Radio 4 that I was "gambling with eternity" because of the way in which I led my life. The right hon. Lady makes a common mistake. She believes that the influence that can be brought to bear on a young person can so transform their sexual leanings that they will become homosexuals. From my experience as a youth worker in the Church of England, when I assisted youth organisations all round the diocese of Peterborough, I know that that is not the case. If it were possible for somebody to catch homosexuality or to be influenced into becoming homosexual, I think that Oscar Wilde's children would have been gay. They were not.
	Homosexuality cannot be caught. One of the myths that is perpetuated in common parlance is that homosexuality and paedophilia are more or less the same thing. Sometimes, in the debate on this issue—especially in the House of Lords, where it has been referred to many times—there has been an enormous conflation that is both ignorant and profoundly unhelpful.
	There are two myths than can easily be dispelled. They strike perhaps a slightly lighter note. One is that no clergy are gay. That was the firm belief of the Bishop of Oxford who, three weeks after ordaining me, said that he had never laid hands on a gay man. Either he did not know, or he chose to ignore it. It is one of the profound sadnesses of the past 50 years that, although the Church of England has had many gay clergy who have served it extremely well—especially in many inner-city parishes where many clergy with children would not want to serve—the Church has pretended that those people have not served it well. That has been a great disservice to the Gospel.
	The second myth is that no married people are gay. I cannot count the number of times I have heard somebody say, "Oh, no, he can't be gay, because he's married with children." I have already mentioned Oscar Wilde but I am sure that there are many others—some of whom have been Members of this House—who could prove that myth untrue.
	I have always felt section 28 to be immoral because of the profound damage that it has done to enormous numbers of bruised individuals. The number of young men who have committed suicide when they have started to understand their own sexuality is phenomenal. The more tolerant attitudes in many other countries have made it far more possible for people to come to understand themselves and to grow into adults who play an important part in society.
	Section 28 was not brought in to protect children; it was brought in to make a declamation—that homosexuality was abnormal, immoral and wrong. That has caused profound damage, not only to homosexual men but to literally millions of wives. How many women, because their men have felt, in the society in which they lived, that they had to get married to cure themselves somehow of their homosexual tendencies, have ended up leading a miserable married life because they never really knew the person to whom they were married? I do not want to mention any particular people, but if any hon. Member doubts what I have said, they should watch the film "Far from Heaven", which is a dramatic version of a story that literally millions of people have gone through. Millions of wives have had their lives destroyed. For that matter, millions of children of homosexual men have never been able to know their father properly. Those men have sought to marry but have done so against what they probably knew to be their proper nature. Their children have often inherited denial as a psychiatric pattern, which has affected the rest of their lives and given them further problems.
	A declamatory law that says that homosexuality is not to be promoted. because in some way or another it is abnormal or immoral, leads to a greater sense that it is okay to bully somebody because they are homosexual. Section 28—as it was called in 1988 and as many of us still think of it—is purely a declamatory law. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has already said that it has no effect in modern law. Law that has been drafted means that the section has been sidelined in a way that is marked. There has not been a single prosecution since section 28 was brought in, despite all the things that the hon. Gentleman referred to.

Andrew Selous: I want to correct the hon. Gentleman on that point. He is probably aware that, in the case of Glasgow City Council, there was a judicial review as a result of section 28, although the section has since been repealed in Scotland.

Chris Bryant: I know that the hon. Gentleman is making a point, but we are talking not about the way that legislation will affect Scotland but about the way that it will affect here.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way as it gives me an opportunity to clarify what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Is it not the case that section 28, as it is known, applies to local education authorities and therefore to youth clubs that are run by them, so any material that is produced for or by youth clubs would be covered by the Act as it now stands?

Chris Bryant: To be honest, the single most important reason for getting rid of section 28 is its declamatory effect. The words that many gay men, lesbians and bisexuals find profoundly offensive are those that state that a local authority shall not
	"promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship."
	I cannot imagine how anyone could have written that from any perspective, whether it be profoundly Christian or Muslim, without deliberately intending to be offensive.

Julian Brazier: rose—

Elfyn Llwyd: rose—

Chris Bryant: I will give way, but I am being particularly generous.

Julian Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is being generous and his speech is courageous, but what does he think about new clause 21? Without mentioning either homosexuality or heterosexuality specifically, it would dissuade local authorities from sexualising young children.

Chris Bryant: I said that I only wanted to speak about one aspect of the subject. New clause 21 is ambivalent and is merely a smokescreen for those who want to pretend that they are in the nice party when really they are not.

Elfyn Llwyd: Surely the best case for the repeal of section 28 is that it is obsolete. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that no one was prosecuted under it. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) referred to a civil process in Scotland. As far as I know, there has never been a criminal prosecution.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
	My problem with such a declamatory law is that it leads to an assumption of prejudice. Some hon. Members may believe that there is hardly any prejudice left against homosexuality in this country. Homosexuals are in nearly every soap opera on television and many celebrities feel able to come out. Indeed, many hon. Members on both sides of the House are honest about their sexuality and see it as something to be celebrated. But prejudice is alive and well. Many children speak of bullying. Being called a poof or a queer can be devastating for young people and they will do everything in their power to prevent that from being levelled at them if they happen to be homosexual. If they are not, it might not matter so much.
	Everyone who guesses the number of homosexuals comes up with a figure of their own, but perhaps between one in 20 and one in 10 are by nature homosexual, as they will discover by the age of 18, 21, 28, 34 or whenever—it will happen at some point in their life. For many of those people, that bullying can be profoundly bruising, and the bruises can sometimes be very real. There are more than a dozen cases every year of serious queer bashing in which individuals are killed or beaten for their sexuality and for doing something that other people would find entirely normal—perhaps for going to a bar or for kissing someone whom they love. It is not many years since the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub in Old Compton street. Very few people in the gay community in London or, I suspect, across the country were not as profoundly touched by that experience as the Afro-Caribbean and Asian communities were when bombs were let off in their communities.
	In addition, gay men or lesbians have to think twice about many thoroughly normal things that are part of an ordinary person's life. They have to think twice before booking a hotel room because the woman on the desk at the hotel might say, "Sorry. We don't allow homosexuals in this hotel", when they turn up. They have to think twice before taking out a mortgage in case the woman falls off her chair when someone says that his partner is a man, not a woman. However, gay and lesbian people do not have to think twice when they write their wills, but three, four or five times because of the difficulty of constructing a will that allows their partner to live in the home for which they may have paid throughout their life. They have to think twice before going abroad because a large number of countries, including many in the Commonwealth, have legislated against homosexuality and the penalties are severe. For that matter, they have no right to attend the inquest of the person with whom they may have lived and shared their life for 20, 30 or 40 years and whose funeral they may have organised.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sure that the House has considerable sympathy with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but how do his remarks relate to sex education in schools and section 28?

Chris Bryant: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would have ruled me out of order had I steered away from the Bill's content. My point is simple, however. At the moment, the section is obsolete. It only exists as a declamatory law and it makes people feel all right about being prejudiced against homosexuals in society. If we are to have a declamatory law on homosexuality, it should proclaim that everyone is equal under the law and has an equal right to live and love.
	Many of us presume that this House will come to one view on the matter and that the other place will come to another. A friend of mine who sits in the House of Lords told me that her first day there was spent in a debate on section 28 which she found perplexing because she had never heard so many medical terms in her life. I profoundly hope that as a result of, I think, four free votes in this House, the House of Lords will honour the views of the democratic Chamber.

Edward Davey: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant). He put his case powerfully and sensitively. Some of the real-life examples that he gave reminded me of gay friends of mine who faced huge prejudice and difficulty when they decided to declare to their family and friends how they really felt about their sexuality. When I spoke at length on the issue in Committee, I mentioned a colleague of mine who was at university with me. When he realised his sexuality in his late teens, rather than face his family, he hanged himself in a toilet in our university. That is the reality of the prejudice and discrimination that many people experience, and that is why it is wrong to have a prejudiced piece of legislation on our statute books.
	I shall be brief because the Liberal Democrats position on section 2A has been clear for a long time. We voted against it when it was first proposed and it has been party policy in successive manifestos to repeal it. Liberal Democrat MPs have voted against it time and again. It was our privilege to move an amendment in Committee, with cross-party support, to remove the section. In particular, I give credit to the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for their support.

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) confirmed that the Conservatives will have a free vote and the Minister confirmed by nodding earlier that that is also the case for Labour Members. Do we take it that the Liberal Democrats will not have a free vote?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman can take it that that is case. It is party policy and has been in three, if not four, manifestos.

David Cairns: I commend the hon. Gentleman's party on that choice. I am sure that the vast majority of my hon. Friends will support his case. We would not dream of allowing a free vote on issues of race discrimination or gender discrimination. I understand the history but, frankly, would prefer my party to take the same stance as the Liberal Democrats.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for that comment. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a matter of party policy and demands that approach.
	We tried to get cross-party consensus on the amendment when we moved it in Committee and it is extremely important that the House gets consensus tonight. In yet another vote, we need to give a clear signal to the other place that the mind of the democratic House is made up. It needs to know that we have voted time and again on the issue and that it no longer splits the parties. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made up their mind on it—indeed, some have even changed their mind. We must send a powerful message to the other place, so that it does not try to obstruct the democratic House on the issue yet again. It is time we got rid of the legislation.
	In Committee it was noticeable that the majority of members from all parties voted to delete section 28, or section 2A, whichever one wants to call it. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), and the hon. Members for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and for Poole (Mr. Syms)—all Conservative Members—voted to delete section 28. They were right to do so, and I believe that their example will be followed by many other Conservative Members tonight. I hope we can maximise the Conservative vote tonight. People outside and in the other place know where the majority of Liberal Democrats and Labour Members stand. It is important that we get rid of the issue by as many Conservative Members as possible voting for the amendment. That will be the best way of getting rid of the discrimination once and for all.

Graham Brady: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman towards consensus. Many of us have considerable sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), but would vote for the deletion of section 28 only if appropriate other safeguards were in place. If the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) wants consensus and wants members of all parties to support his argument, it would be nice to hear him supporting the idea that parents might have some say about what their children were taught.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for that intervention, which brings me on to my next point. There are already many safeguards to protect children and give parents the power. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 makes it clear that local authorities are not responsible for sex education in schools. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 makes it clear that there is a framework for protecting children. It is a strong framework that had support from all parts of the House. The Education Act 1996, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said, gave parents the right to remove their children from sex education lessons in school if they so wished. The sex and relationship education guidance published by the Government in July 2000, which was so powerfully supported from the Conservative Front Bench, is very clear. It is difficult to understand what further safeguards are required. They are strong and they work.

Patrick Cormack: Has the hon. Gentleman any conception of what it is like for a child to be withdrawn deliberately by the parents from any formal instruction? That child is immediately isolated and is often treated in a rather unpleasant way by the rest of the children.

Edward Davey: That argument is fallacious. It would be easy to ensure that the removal of the child was done in a sensitive way if the parents spoke to the teacher and the head teacher. There should be no problem about that.
	The Conservative amendment, No. 37, which proposes another approach to give parents choice—through ballots—is one of the most odious amendments to come before the House in a long time. Can the hon. Gentleman imagine what would happen? There would be ballot after ballot led by homophobes trying to change the sex education policy of school after school. It is a recipe for homophobic behaviour on a grand scale. It would not give parents any real choice; it would give homophobes a choice. We should oppose it vigorously.

Andrew Turner: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I did not support the amendment in Committee, and I find it odd that he should believe that democracy is right when democrats would agree with Liberal Democrats, but not right at other times. However, his earlier point was that there was no need for any new safeguard. Will he concede that section 28 covers the organisations covered by section 508, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) read out earlier, including youth clubs, and that no other legislation covers those institutions?

Edward Davey: I shall give the hon. Gentleman two answers. [Interruption.] He made two points, so he deserves two answers. His first point was that Liberal Democrats do not like democracy in these circumstances. We are Liberal Democrats; we believe in liberal democracy. That means, as the hon. Gentleman as a Member of the House ought to know, that the interests of minorities should be protected under the law. We stand firm and square for that, and I am surprised that he does not.
	On new clause 17, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said, section 28 does not apply to youth clubs. We are concerned about new clause 17 because of the way it could apply. Does it take account of the voluntary sector? Would it apply where a local authority gave some small support to a voluntary-run youth club, possibly scouts or a church club? One of the major flaws in the new clause is that children and young people attend youth clubs on a voluntary basis, according to their parents' wishes. That is quite different from attending school, which is compulsory by law. The parents can decide, after discussion with those running the youth club, whether their children should attend. New clause 17 goes into dangerous territory for the Conservative party, infringing the rights of parents and voluntary groups. I am surprised to see it tabled in the name of Conservative Members.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman was present in Committee and he will have discovered that there is a lacuna in the Bill. If the existing section 2A is abolished, there will be no provision for guidance to youth clubs and other bodies. Our new clause specifically refers to those funded by local authorities. Those are public sector bodies. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there needs to be guidance to youth clubs and other such bodies?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have grasped the point that there are many voluntary youth clubs throughout the country, often scouts and guides, that receive taxpayers' money from local authorities. Many local authorities help the uniformed organisations and voluntary-run organisations and would fall foul of the new clause.
	I shall take no more of the time of the House, as we want to hear from other right hon. and hon. Members. It is time the House grew up, realised how our constituents are living out there, stopped hiding in the past, and removed this odious legislation from the statute book once and for all.

Kali Mountford: As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) rightly said, the essence of the debate is the education, protection and care of children. That is what we should focus on—how we nurture children's minds so that, as adults, they can operate properly in society. That is the aim of education, of growing up, of youth clubs, of voluntary sector organisations, of parents, governors and teachers. The problem with section 28 is that that is not its aim. Section 28 has been bypassed by subsequent legislation and by society's increasing acceptance of difference.
	When we deal with difference, we need to be honest with children. As sure as eggs is eggs, children will notice if we are not telling them the truth. Any parent knows that if a child asks us a question and we try to sidestep it rather than dealing with it directly and honestly in a way that he or she can understand, he or she will not only not believe us on that occasion, but will probably not believe anything we say ever after. That means that as early as a child asks, "Why is uncle Fred living with uncle George?" we have to tell them. As early as a child says, "Mummy, I've just seen two men holding hands," or, "That girl just kissed that other girl," if we do not tell the truth about the reason behind it, the child will never believe us on that or on anything else. Education must be in the context of the world we live in, not the world we would like to live in. Where a school is in a community, the education from that school must reflect not only the ethos of the school but the community and families from which pupils of that school are drawn. If parents have the opportunity to choose a school—we must all accept that that choice is not available to everybody, for a variety of reasons, such as ability to travel, and, in some circumstances, ability to pay—to some extent, they have a voice within that school. That is what many hon. Members are concerned about. It has been said that hon. Members would feel more comforted in supporting the withdrawal of section 28 if some other protection were in place. I ask those Members to consider carefully what they think is happening, what is really happening, and what might be the effect of proposed legislation.
	What is happening now? In schools, the curriculum committee that is required of every governing body of every state-funded school must include a teacher, a parent and other members of the governing body, and it must approve the curriculum of the school. If parents are not happy with the curriculum devised, not only can they remove the child if they want to do so but they can object to the curriculum overall. That curriculum needs to be agreed by the school, and that is part of what we do now.

Graham Brady: How many parents examine the material that is used in schools in sex education? Surely the hon. Lady cannot imagine that the system works as well as possible, and that parents are always making an informed decision in that process.

Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I have experience not only as a parent but as a grandparent: I have three grandchildren in primary education, and I also have a child aged 19 in education, so I can see the whole range of education in my family. If a child came home with a story about something inappropriate that had happened at school, I cannot imagine the parents not noticing. The prospect of sending curriculum material to every parent for approval would be dire. Curriculum bodies allow representatives of parents to represent the view of the community to the governing body. That is the purpose of setting up the governing body in that way.
	My problem with amendment No. 17 is that it would ask every parent to vet curriculum material—on an annual basis, I presume, as curriculum material changes all the time—which would be a nightmare. I cannot see how that could work. The representation of parents on governing bodies is working well and has been working well for some time. The evidence that it is working well is that we do not have a flood of parents knocking on our constituency office door saying, "Good heavens, my child has been looking at this material today, and I object strongly." If a parent did so, I would represent their view, but it has never happened.
	The proof of that is in the experience. Since section 28 was introduced, people have not been bringing forward such material. That is not because of the protection of section 28, because, as we know, section 28 has been overtaken by events. The protection has been the good sense of the parents, teachers and governors on the governing body who decide the curriculum. That has worked well for a long time, and it has been enhanced still further by the guidance that has been produced. Hon. Members may want to enshrine that guidance in law, but I think there are difficulties with that. Such an approach does not recognise the very thing that is special about schools—the fact that they are founded in the communities in which they are placed. In a predominantly Muslim area, the curriculum may be taken in a particular direction suited to the community. A predominantly Christian area or Christian school may have a particular direction for their education, too. That is to be welcomed, and it recognises the breadth of culture, religion and diversity that we have in communities.
	Enshrining that in legislation becomes extremely difficult. At the moment, a school can reflect the ethos of the community in which it is based, but enshrining that in legislation would fix that at the point at which we are now, and would not allow for the constant changes in communities. We are living in a dynamic society that changes constantly, and we must recognise not only the changes in society overall but changes in education and what is thought appropriate. What we thought 50 years ago, and what we thought when I was at school, is very different from what we think now. Parliament can set out certain broad objectives that a school might want to achieve, but I have never thought that Parliament is the right to place to decide on the day-by-day aspects of a school's curriculum. That level of detail, and that level of imposition on family life, seem profoundly wrong.
	That kind of decision should not be taken in this place, because it strips out all the usefulness of the contact between parents and schools. We should treasure that contact, which is not achieved through a bureaucratic process and a ballot. Balloting on these issues does not bring out the best in everybody. All that happens when we have ballots is that entrenched positions develop on either side and debate is polarised, and groups with different sets of values pull the community apart. It is not about cohesion or bringing people together, and that is very wrong, certainly for children. I would not want my children to be placed in a school in which such debates started to divide communities.
	These are questions for the family. The morality that I want in my family—we have, I hope, very high moral standards—comes from the family, what we believe, and what we discuss at home. It is sad and a shame that there are some families in which such discussions do not take place. We cannot say that the proper place for all that discussion is school. We must not be directive to that extent. I have strong feelings about how I want my children to be: I want them to be caring, open and accepting of other people. I do not want them to go to a school that closes down their minds in relation to accepting and caring for different kinds of families

Angela Watkinson: Does the hon. Lady not accept that the nub of this debate is not about accepting or tolerating but about promoting, which is a different thing altogether?

Kali Mountford: I am sad that that has been raised, as it relates to the differences between what people believe and what is true. The fact that someone believes something does not make it true. It is a complete myth that sexuality can be promoted. Members of my family are gay, straight and transsexual, too. Are we saying that any of those people have a lesser or greater place in the family or in society? Of course we are not. If someone were to beg me, on their knees, to be gay, I could not be, because I am not gay. No more could I say to anyone I know who is gay, "You must be straight." It is not possible to promote a particular sexuality as having a greater value than another. I strongly and firmly attest and believe that one's sexuality is as much a part of oneself as any other aspect.
	We can no more lop off an arm than change our sexuality—it would be a denial of oneself. It is wrong-headed and a complete myth to suggest that sexuality can be promoted. If it could, everyone would be straight because, when we go to school, to be gay is to be different and normality is promoted—whatever a normal family is. Two parents married for all time with two children and everyone living happily ever after is the preferred and promoted state in schools, and that is supported by guidance, yet people are gay.

Julian Brazier: Does the hon. Lady not accept that, among children, it is wrong to promote sexuality at all and that when a child of 12 becomes pregnant, as has happened in the village next to mine, it suggests that there is too much encouragement of sex among people who are years under the age of consent? I ask the hon. Lady to consider new clause 21, which addresses that wider issue.

Kali Mountford: I would happily go some way with what the hon. Gentleman says about the sexualisation of children, but the new clause that he appears to support would not do much about it. The sexualisation of children is not happening in schools, or even necessarily youth clubs; it is happening in a wider sense, and I deplore it. I do not like the idea of little children wearing adult clothes and behaving in an adult way; that is quite wrong, but it is not happening in schools, and it is certainly not being promoted in them. If it were promoted in the schools where my children are taught, I could imagine that fleets of parents would go down to the school saying, "What on earth are you doing telling my five-year-old that Barbie is an essential part of life and that little girls of five should be like Barbie?" That is not the way that we expect our schools to behave now.

Chris Bryant: Is not the truth of the matter that children are talking about sex day in day out, and that, rather than promoting anything, it is often a case of answering their questions and correcting some of the myths?

Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend, as ever, is entirely right, and what he says takes me back to the beginning of my remarks: children will always, and should always, ask questions. Without asking questions, how can they know anything? If we do not tell the truth, they will make things up, and the myths about how children are born will continue. I do not want to make the House any more squeamish than it has been made by earlier remarks, but I recently read that some teenagers believe cling film is an appropriate form of contraception. I will not go into how the cling film is used; hon. Members can use their imaginations. That sort of problem leads to what the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) rightly pointed out—too many teenage pregnancies—but that can be dealt with only by answering the questions that young people ask about their own feelings, their own relationships and how they fit in.
	Very often, peer group pressure, rather than a teacher trying to instil an idea into a child, is the greatest problem. Those ideas are already being propagated all the time in the playground, after school and wherever young people congregate on street corners, and we must be empowered to challenge them. We must be able to say to young people that some behaviour is not appropriate in a relationship—it is not loving, caring or responsible—and that males and females are not respecting each other's bodies or the child that might result.
	All sorts of things are included in the guidance that the hon. Member for Cotswold rightly commended to the House, but I differ with him about enshrining such things in law for the very difficult reasons that I have mentioned. My problem is that the guidance would be rigid and fixed for all time.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Kali Mountford: If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell me how he could change the guidance, he may.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: First, I said that the guidance could be changed by statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure, which is how we would enshrine it in law.
	Secondly, does the hon. Lady accept that the written statement will sometimes depart from the guidance? In those circumstances, how are parents supposed to make their views known in their children's school, other than by withdrawing them from the sex education in that school, which is not desirable, as I am sure the hon. Lady would admit? Our mechanism of having a ballot—I expect that it would be used very rarely—would provide those parents with that safeguard.

Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman says that the measure would be used very rarely. Thank goodness for that, as it shows that the good sense of teachers and governors, which I have already outlined, will prevail. I cannot imagine how the measure would be used at all because the current system is working well.
	It has been established in Committee and repeated on the Floor of the House today that section 28 is obsolete. The hon. Member for Cotswold has accepted that many times in debate. If the guidance is working well now, and since hon. Members have not been able to cite a single complaint from parents who have not been able to influence the school, what is section 28 for? Why not allow the variety of education that exists to continue, so that education can be as dynamic as we would want it to be?

David Wilshire: I speak in favour of amendment No. 8. It is a long time since I have said anything in public about section 28. Although I tabled the related amendment to the Local Government Bill in 1987, I have kept out of the debate for some years now. In view of all that has happened and all the things have been said in the past 15 years and again this evening, I thought it might be helpful if I could try to get the debate back to the reality of section 28 and away from the assertions and assumptions that have been made ever since.
	I listened with great care to the impassioned speech made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), and I pay my respects to him for saying what he said. He said that the Bishop of Oxford was wrong and he knew it. May I say, as gently as I possibly can, that the hon. Gentleman's views of the purposes behind section 28 are wrong? I tabled it, and I hope that he will accept that none of the assertions that he has made were in my mind in the time.
	When I arrived in the House for the first time in 1987, I had spent 11 years in local government at a time when various councils and councillors were wasting huge sums of public money and using large sums of public money to achieve social change that the overwhelming majority of people in this country did not want.

Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Wilshire: I will not because of time, if my hon. Friend will forgive me.
	I was enthusiastically opposed to what I saw as a misuse of money then, and I remain so now.
	I suffered the fate of all new Members of Parliament; I was unceremoniously dumped on to a Standing Committee. No one took the trouble to tell me that, as a Government Back Bencher, I was not supposed to say or do anything, so I tabled an amendment. Little did I realise what I was unleashing when I did so. I doubt that many other MPs have been accused of causing people to abseil from the Public Gallery on to the Floor of another place. I do not think that many other MPs, at least not in the past century, have been blamed for a siege of Parliament. Indeed, I got a fair amount of hate mail and a fair amount of publicity, most of it unflattering.
	It might be relevant to say, perhaps in my own defence, that I gave an interview to a newspaper called Capital Gay. I do not know whether it still exists, but on 5 February 1988, it published the outcome of that interview and the start of the article is as relevant now as it was then.
	It says:
	"David Wilshire is not a bigot. I repeat: David Wilshire—the man who introduced Clause 28 into Parliament—is not a bigot.
	Confused, ignorant and illogical—Yes. Stupid, even. But bigoted he is not."
	To this day, I protest that section 28 has nothing to do with bigotry, and it certainly had nothing to do with bigotry when I introduced it.
	My focus 15 years ago was on the use and misuse of taxpayers' money. It had nothing to do then—and it has nothing to do now—with lifestyles or making moral judgments.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Wilshire: Forgive me, but many other Members wish to speak.
	At that time, councils were intentionally attempting to promote homosexuality. It may be argued that one cannot promote it, but councils were trying to do so at that time. There were plenty examples of that. Some councils portrayed alternative families as the same as the ones that we all know. Councils were using taxpayers' money to do that. All that section 28 said then and all that it says now is, "You simply mustn't use taxpayers' money to do that sort of thing." Section 28 passed no judgment on individuals. It left them free to do whatever they wished. I defend their right to do that. I agree totally with almost all that the hon. Member for Rhondda said. I have no problems when it comes to an individual issue. It is the use of taxpayers' money that concerns me.

Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Wilshire: Yes, as I have now mentioned the hon. Gentleman twice.

Chris Bryant: I accept that the hon. Gentleman considers himself not to be a bigot, but the phrase that many people find profoundly offensive and bigoted is "pretended family relationship". Does he not accept that?

David Wilshire: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. If we were to get into a debate about lifestyles, that point would apply. However, all that I was saying then and all that I am saying now is that one must not use taxpayers' money for such things. Fifteen years later, I am still opposed to the use of taxpayers' money in that way. I believe that section 28 was necessary because money was being used for those purposes. I believe that section 28 has worked, because the things that were happening stopped. If local government has no wish to promote or to attempt to promote homosexuality, what is the fuss all about? All the add-on issues and concerns that the hon. Gentleman and others have raised have nothing to do with section 28. There is an ethical debate to be had, but section 28 should not be used as the vehicle for that debate.
	I hope that, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow for a vote to be held on amendment No. 8. I certainly want one, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) who tabled the amendment. I make that formal request now. On balance—I stress the phrase "on balance"—I have no regrets at what I did 15 years ago. I believed then that what I was doing was right, and I believe that, by voting for the amendment, I will be doing what I still believe to be right.

David Borrow: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak after the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who explained the heart of the problems that we are debating. It is the assumption that homosexuality can be promoted and therefore that, by spending public money, one can increase the proportion of the population that is homosexual. In itself, that statement is totally stupid; there is no evidence for it whatever.
	The hon. Gentleman's proposal that central Government should legislate in specific areas to stop local government wasting money is rather stupid. Local government wastes money in many other areas, and we rely on the electorate to boot out councillors who waste public money. Parliament does not introduce individual clauses year after year to stop individual councillors wasting a bit of money here and there.
	The hon. Gentleman assumes that section 28 was all about preventing the waste of public money. That may have been the reason why he introduced it and he may not be a bigot. However, I was deeply offended when section 28 was passed and, in my first year as a member of Preston borough council, I was able to persuade the council to pass a resolution against the provision. For me and many other gay men and lesbians, section 28 and, in particular, the reference to "pretended family relationship" is deeply offensive. I regard my relationship with my partner in the same way as my sisters would regard their relationships with their married partners. To enshrine in legislation something that is so partial and so deeply offensive to a minority of the population should cause every hon. Member to think deeply about whether that is what we are sent here to do.
	I look forward to the removal of section 28. I also smiled somewhat at the assumption that sexuality can be promoted. I went to school in the west riding of Yorkshire in the 1950s and 1960s, and the concept that homosexuality existed was unknown to me. I was totally unaware that an alternative to marriage existed. Sex education should be taught in such a way that adolescent boys and girls who are struggling with their sexuality feel that they can have a happy future if they turn out to be gay. I hope that the vast majority who turn out to be heterosexual will grow up to be tolerant, caring and loving to everyone and that prejudices and bigotry will not be supported by legislation, however innocently that legislation may have been introduced in the first place.

Edward Leigh: Many exaggerated claims have been made about section 28. Some say that it prevents any discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, that it prevents teachers from tackling bullying and that it is a "hate clause". None of that is true. The circular that was issued to accompany the provision in 1988 makes it clear, for example, that objective discussion of homosexuality is not affected by section 28.
	Section 28 is about the use of local authority money for the active promotion of homosexuality. Certain subjects in our society are controversial. Politics is one and religion is another. Sexuality is a controversial subject on which people have differing views. We hear a lot of talk about respect when the subject is raised. I am concerned that there should be respect for the views of parents.
	I am very relaxed about what people do in private. That is their own business. I do not seek to condemn people for what they do. Like most of the British public, I am realistic about these things. However, most people do not want homosexuality promoted to children in school or elsewhere. We are not extreme people. Like most people, I am tolerant of homosexuals. Those who simply hate homosexual people are, thankfully, in a tiny minority. I doubt whether a single person in the House falls into that category.
	I use the word "tolerant" deliberately. Most British people are tolerant of homosexual people. They may know homosexuals and they like them as people, as I do. However, whether we like it or not, many people in this country—their views should not be dismissed—think that homosexual practice, with the emphasis on the word "practice", is wrong. That is what tolerance means—putting up with something that one believes to be wrong.
	I have tabled an amendment to retain section 28 partly because I believe that there should be a debate on the subject. If I had not tabled it, there would have been no debate on a matter that is important to the British people, whatever their views. I tabled it also because I believe that section 28 is right and represents the wishes of the majority of the British public. We must be careful when legislating on such a contentious subject and dealing with whether council tax payers' money is spent on promoting views that many people find controversial.
	Should local authorities tell children to try experimenting sexually with boys and girls to ascertain with whom they feel most comfortable? Some local authorities recommend materials that advise exactly that. Should sex education in schools be conducted in a moral vacuum? My answer is no. Protection such as section 28 should exist. There is anxiety about what schools teach about politics and religion; sex education is the same sort of subject. Some appalling materials should not be promoted for use in our schools.
	We should be careful and consider not simply what politically correct views dictate, or the wishes of a specific minority group, but the genuine wishes of ordinary people who have children. They want their children to be protected and to know that local authorities will do nothing in schools, youth groups or elsewhere to undermine the moral values that they have attempted to instil in their children.
	One reason for retaining section 28 is that it works. If it did not, the Government would not have spent so much parliamentary time and political capital on trying to repeal it. If it were truly redundant, as some allege, it could remain on the statute book, unused and forgotten. However, gay rights supporters and the Government want to repeal it because they know that it works.

Annette Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: I shall do so later, but others want to speak and I want to make my point. However, if the hon. Lady wishes to intervene later, I shall give way to her.
	Gay rights groups want to repeal section 28 because they want public subsidy for their work. They know that they would not receive much money if they promoted their cause in the high street. People will give to charities that look after the poor and so on, but they will not knowingly fund the promotion of homosexuality or any other sexual special interest group. Public money has breathed life into groups, which, if left alone, would make little headway and would not survive. Such groups need public money. Gay rights groups know that some councillors are sympathetic to pushing public cash their way. Section 28 stops them doing that. Extreme local authorities that would like to promote homosexuality often do not do so because they are afraid of section 28.
	In 1992, only four years after the provision was introduced, Peter Tatchell of the gay rights group Outrage! complained that he knew of at least 35 instances of self-censorship by local authorities that feared prosecution under section 28. Councillors know that if they approve ultra vires expenditure, they can be forced to pay back council tax payers' money out of their pockets. That is a sobering thought. They also know that a council tax payer who objects to the unlawful use of his money can seek judicial review.
	In Scotland in 2000, a nurse sued Glasgow city council for breach of section 28. She succeeded in stopping a council-funded youth group, with members as young as 12, that used extremely explicit homosexual pornography. The council was forced to ensure that its grants were not used to promote homosexuality. The nurse's case was so strong that even when the action had to be dropped because the Scottish Parliament deleted section 28, Glasgow city council agreed to pay its legal costs.
	Some councillors do not want to fund gay groups, but hide behind section 28. They fear the vitriol that the gay rights lobby might pour on them for refusing to support them. They say, "I'm sorry. I'd like to fund your gay rights venture but I simply can't because of section 28." If that is one of the ways in which the provision operates, that is fine—its purpose is fulfilled.
	The current law works. It prevents the promotion of a lifestyle with which many disagree. The wording is clear; parents understand it and that it is why they like it. It reassures them about what their local authority is teaching their children, especially in schools. Gay rights groups know what it means. That is why they dislike it. It means that the statute book states that promoting homosexuality is undesirable.

Annette Brooke: Is the hon. Gentleman worried by the fact that many teachers dislike section 28 because they have felt inhibited about giving essential guidance to troubled adolescents?

Edward Leigh: Nothing in section 28 prevents a balanced discussion in the classroom of sexuality, homosexuality or anything else.
	Let me deal with the Conservative party because it is important to understand our position. Conservative Front-Bench Members fear that, if they support section 28 they will be perceived as acting against a minority, and that that will lose us support in the country. I do not believe that. The only people who raise gay rights issues at election time are gay rights activists. On the doorstep, voters are worried about crime, education and health.
	Homosexual people vote Conservative because they believe in Conservative values and not because the party plays up to a minority rights agenda. We cannot appease every interest group. Tory Members could vote en masse for repeal today but I doubt whether it would sway more than a few hundred voters in the country. In my experience, those who are most stridently critical of traditional Tory party policy on section 28 would not vote Conservative anyway.
	Some people hold conventional views and like section 28, but believe that it should go because it is a totem to others. Such arguments have been made today. They perceive that a small minority has strong personal feelings about the provision. That is undeniable, but it is not a good enough reason to change a law. Some people feel strongly that recreational use of cannabis should be legal, but that is not enough for Parliament.
	I stress, especially to my hon. Friends, that we must make a moral judgment. I hear the sound of hackles rising, but we make moral judgments all the time in the House. We decide that it is moral to tax people and threaten them with criminal proceedings unless they pay. We force people to pay income tax because we believe that it is moral to do that to fund public services. We disagree about the extent of taxation but we cannot deny that we make a moral judgment. We do so all the time.
	We make moral judgments about criminalising people. We will shortly consider the Sexual Offences Bill, which will criminalise some forms of incest for the first time. It will provide that a person who has any sexual contact with someone who is under 16 commits a criminal offence. Most hon. Members support that. However, it is a moral judgment.
	In the past, some hon. Members laughed when I said that I have friends who are homosexual. I mention that to rebut the calumny, which is often thrown at people with views such as mine, that we are hateful, spiteful, prejudiced or bigoted and that we openly or secretly wish homosexual people to suffer. We are accused of condoning physical violence against homosexual people or stirring up such violence, and of being equivalent to racists. We are nothing of the sort. We are simply making a judgment that is based on our religion or our moral beliefs about the family. It is based on profound conviction. We make a judgment about people's actions, not their inherent, inborn traits, the colour of their skin or their genes. I accept that we make a moral judgment, but I believe that we are entitled to make it.
	Those who are open and honest about their moral judgments do not hate the people who engage in the act of which they disapprove. That would be thoroughly unchristian. However, they believe that the act is wrong. Sometimes in this House, we have to have the moral courage to stand up for what we believe in. When we are talking about protecting children and young people, we must stand up for what we believe to be right.
	Section 28 is a statement that there is no moral equivalence between homosexuality and heterosexuality. I make that moral statement. I know that it is controversial and that it is not accepted by many people in this House, but I make it in the knowledge that many other people in this country believe it to be true. It is the view of very many parents who are interested not in the gay rights agenda, but in bringing up their children, just as I want to do, to be moral, responsible, self-controlled and right-thinking members of society. They care about preserving the values that are important to them. Why should they be called names just for doing the right thing for their children?
	I commend amendment No. 8 to the House.

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) spoke about getting the debate back to reality. I say this to the hon. Gentleman, who is not in his place: it may be that his intentions were honourable and related to saving taxpayers' money, but the unintended consequences of the legislation have been appalling. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) set out the reality of the position from one perspective. As a trustee of Childline, I have to tell the House that I have heard the reality from kids speaking at the end of a phone line about the lack of protection that they have received because of the uncertainty in their schools.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) spoke about the importance of protecting children from bullying. He is absolutely right to talk about that, but section 28 was a charter to allow some bullying to take place on the ground of homophobia. However much Opposition Front Benchers shake their heads about that, I simply say to them that they should come and listen to the children whom we talk to at Childline and hear about the pain that they suffer. He may stick to his principles and believe that the measure could not possibly have that effect, but the reality is that it did.
	This issue is not about wasting taxpayers' money. Indeed, Childline has to raise money and is one of a number of charities that have to do so to fund work to clear up the damage done by pernicious measures such as section 28. The reality is that section 28 passed judgment. That was most brilliantly—if one can use those words to mean "in a shining sense"—shown in the words "pretended family relationship". That phrase caused huge hurt and, indeed, it was intended by some to do so. That was at the heart of section 28 and it has damaged people. One of the finer things that we will be doing this year in our legislation is ridding the statute book of this nasty and pernicious measure.
	The word "promotion" was a very clever one to use. That may not have been the intention, but it was unintentionally very clever. Why? Those of us who thought that section 28 was a bad measure had to say, if we supported its repeal, that we wanted homosexuality to be promoted. If we wanted it to be repealed, it apparently followed that we wanted homosexuality to be promoted. That is why the provision was so clever and why some of the press that I enjoyed three years ago was so unpleasant about me, as, apparently, I wanted to promote homosexuality.
	I do not want the promotion of homosexuality or heterosexuality. What I want is responsible teaching in our schools to help children to cope with growing up. I say to the hon. Member for Cotswold that it does not help to take pieces of guidance for teachers in Scotland, deliberately to twist the way in which they were intended to be used and say that such material would be absolutely terrifying if it fell into the hands of schoolchildren. He knows that it was not intended to fall into the hands of schoolchildren and there is no question about that. Of course, such an approach can pervert the way in which we talk about the issue. Once again, it is tragic to see, when so many Conservative Members have now changed their minds—

Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Shaun Woodward: I shall not.
	Many Conservative Members have changed their minds for all the best of reasons, but, unfortunately, underneath it all, among some members of the Conservative party, there is still a willingness to say, "Somewhere underneath all this, teachers really want to promote this stuff and it's all very nasty."
	The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) constantly spoke about being a parent, so I shall do so in return. I have a son and three daughters. One of them may grow up to be gay or they all might not be gay. What I know is that, because of their ages, they are all passing through periods of growing up and are becoming adults and going through sexual experiences in changing from a child to an adult. I am glad if teachers are encouraged to gain understanding. The hon. Member for Cotswold referred to the word "clitoris". I have an 11-year-old daughter, a nine-year-old daughter and a six-year-old daughter. I am not ashamed that that word is contained in guidance to teachers. If my 11-year-old child, who is experiencing the passage of growing up, can talk with her teachers about such things and not feel ashamed and scared about it, that is a good thing and the hon. Gentleman should not be afraid of it.
	I say to the hon. Member for Cotswold and his party that they lecture the Labour party on not trusting teachers and tell us that we give them too much red tape and guidance, but at the first opportunity for a free vote, they immediately want to invent guidance, regulations and red tape to tell teachers what to do in the classroom. I am prepared to trust teachers on his issue. When I was in the Conservative party, I was told that this issue was all about family values. I have always felt that it is about family values, because I do not think that family values are simply the ones that some in his party would wish to say that families were about. Families are complex things. They come in all shapes and sizes. The important thing is the love, attention and nurturing that we give to our children.

Alan Duncan: There is a crucial issue that the House has not discussed today. Is it not the case that, in passing the Adoption and Children Act 2002, we last year institutionalised in law homosexual parenthood as an actual family relationship? Therefore, if a council were to look for gay parents under the law that this House has passed, it could fall foul of section 28. There is a conflict.

Shaun Woodward: Over the years since my little local difficulty with the Conservative party, the hon. Gentleman and I have not always seen eye to eye, but he is absolutely right on this one. Once again, the crucial issue is the love that can be provided by one or two people, whether they are of different sexes or the same sex, for a child. That must be reflected in the school environment, local authorities and everywhere else where a child is brought up.
	This issue is not about tolerance, as some hon. Members have said. As long as it is seen as being only about tolerance, we have not moved very far. It is about fairness and equality. It is about equality because we are all capable of loving each other, although that may happen for different reasons and in different circumstances. The hon. Member for Gainsborough said—I think that he denigrated his argument by doing so—that the issue was all about the gay rights special lobby. Frankly, there is every reason for those in that lobby to undertake special pleading about some of the devastatingly cruel things that have been done to people who are gay, but the issue is not about special pleading. It is simply about saying, "Let's all treat each other in the same way." There is no special pleading; it is about fairness and about everybody being equal under the law.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that, in an age of pervasive cynicism about Punch and Judy politics, it is important not to oppose, criticise or formulate alternative policies for the sake of doing so? I will vote for repeal and against the obnoxious amendments, and I shall also be against other risible amendments that are really designed to save face.

Shaun Woodward: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; this issue is not about political correctness, but fairness. In that sense, I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough that it is about a moral judgment—the moral judgment to be fair and to allow everybody to be treated equally.
	That is what is at the heart of getting rid of this very nasty measure. It is about scrapping those who would use it to hide their prejudices and fears, because they have nothing to be fearful about. What people have to fear is prejudice out there doing harm. When my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda mentions the 12 people who are on the end of being gay bashed and murdered each year, year in, year out, the hon. Member for Gainsborough should think about that. If the legislation before us saves one life, let alone 12 lives—or 120 in 10 years—it will be a very good thing that we do tonight.
	Section 28 is a dreadful measure, and we should get rid of it. Let us hope that if anything is infectious, it is the spirit of Conservative Members who will vote to do so tonight. Let us hope that they can pass on their enthusiasm to their colleagues in another place.

Nick Raynsford: We have had a mixed debate, including a number of passionate, impressive speeches revealing deep understanding of the complex, sensitive issues with which we are dealing. We have also heard speeches that seemed curiously redolent of a previous era when prejudice, stereotypes and divisiveness were in the ascendancy.
	Our debates on this subject send important messages about our attitudes to tolerance, fairness and inclusion. Those messages are relevant both to the wider public and to the other place. This evening's debate will receive a great deal more attention from the wider public and the media than did our debate in Committee, which was generally a high-level and impressive debate. The outcome in Committee was that a majority of Members in each of the political parties voted to repeal section 28. There was an overwhelming vote of 19 to two in favour of repeal. Fourteen Labour Members voted for repeal, and none voted against.

Paul Goodman: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Raynsford: I ask the hon. Gentleman to restrain himself. I was about to refer to him.
	Four Conservative Members voted for the repeal of section 28. Two, including the hon. Gentleman, did not. One Liberal Democrat Member voted for repeal. In total, 19 Members were in favour of repeal and only two were in favour of retention. That sends a powerful message that I hope will be echoed in this debate and listened to very carefully in the other place. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Paul Goodman: Will the Minister concede that the debate in Committee was extremely brief, and that not all Members who wanted to speak got the chance to do so?

Nick Raynsford: We had a long debate; it lasted almost a whole sitting of the Committee. There were frequent interventions, including some from the hon. Gentleman. I certainly did not get the impression that the debate was curtailed in any way, and the issues were covered thoroughly, as they have been tonight.
	There are several amendments and new clauses in this group, and I shall begin with those that seek to disturb the substantial degree of agreement on the principle of repeal. Amendment No. 8 and amendments Nos. 10 to 18 seek to remove clause 119 and the associated consequential amendments, thereby preserving section 28. I do not intend to go over all the ground on the principle of repeal. The Government's position on that is clear: section 28 is an unnecessary measure that many people find deeply offensive, because it stigmatises certain lifestyles. We are committed to tackling actual and perceived discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and section 28 is widely perceived as discriminatory. We should remove that unnecessary measure; it has caused offence and confusion for long enough.
	The other amendments and new clauses seek to introduce purported safeguards or to delay implementation, based on concerns about the possible effect of repeal. They are not necessary and they would have no beneficial effect.

John Bercow: I agree with the Minister that section 28 has caused too much pain to too many people for too long. Is he, as the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, interested to hear that I was informed by the Department for Education and Skills last week that it is not aware of having a received a single complaint in the last six months about the sex and relationship education guidance issued in July 2000? Is it not a case of game, set and match?

Nick Raynsford: That is clear important evidence that the current arrangements work well, and that there is absolutely no need for a change. As I shall go on to make clear, section 28 is wholly irrelevant to what is taught in schools, and the hon. Gentleman's point is valid.
	Interestingly, many of the amendments appear to be based on the continuing misconception that section 28 has an impact on sex education in schools, which is a clear illustration of the confusion that the measure has engendered. Local education authorities have no say in what is taught in schools. The Education Act 1996, as amended, places the responsibility for sex education in schools firmly on teachers and governors. It gives the Secretary of State a statutory duty to issue guidance on sex and relationship education. It explicitly states that parents should be involved in developing a school's policy. Local authorities do not determine schools' sex education policies, so none of that is affected by the repeal of section 28.
	Section 405 of the 1996 Act provides a further safeguard by enabling parents to withdraw their children from the non-statutory elements of sex education in schools—that is, the parts of the national curriculum that are not covered through science. Few parents see the need to make use of that safeguard. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the Department for Education and Skills has received no complaints about the issue in the past six months. Indeed, since the guidance was introduced, the level of parental withdrawal has stood at well under 1 per cent. That represents an overwhelming endorsement of the framework that has been in place for nearly three years.
	New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to report every two years on the effect of the repeal of section 28 on a number of issues: adherence to the guidance that I have mentioned, the operation of the requirement for schools to make their policies available for inspection by parents, and the number of parents withdrawing their children from sex education lessons. That measure is simply not necessary. The fundamental point remains that, as I have said, local authorities have no locus in determining schools' sex education policies, and we have in place a robust framework, which will not be affected by the repeal of section 28. Surely there is no need to report on a measure that will have no effect.
	The amendments to new clause 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) would add a requirement to report on the operation of guidance for bodies established by local authorities for recreation and social and physical training. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is focusing on youth clubs in particular. Authorities have a duty to ensure that education provision in their area includes adequate facilities of that kind. They may choose to provide those directly, or others may provide them. The amendments are technically flawed because section 508 of the 1996 Act enables local authorities to provide such facilities, which is very different from establishing bodies, as suggested in the amendment; I shall deal with the wider issue of those facilities under new clause 17. However, I do not want to argue simply on technicalities; I regard the amendments as inappropriate.
	New clause 17 would prevent local authorities from providing financial support to such facilities unless the authority was satisfied that any sex or relationship guidance offered by the facility complied with the sex and relationship education guidance issued by the Department for Education and Skills. That is an unnecessary bureaucratic burden, which the Opposition seek to foist on to local government and the voluntary sector. It shows that the purported concern with greater freedom for local government that we heard Opposition Members voicing in Committee is as flimsy as we always suspected. Indeed, the new clause could well put at risk the continued operation of valued youth centres and similar projects.
	Let us consider a scenario in which a local authority is presented with a malicious unfounded complaint against a youth club operated by a voluntary agency, so it feels inhibited from giving any financial support to that body until the investigation has been completed. In the meantime, the organisation could cease to exist or be put out of business. That would be the consequence of the new clause; indeed, it would be the consequence of many of the elements associated with section 28. It would encourage homophobia and prejudice and allow bigots to interfere with proper service delivery. We should have no truck with that.

Andrew Turner: It is perfectly open to the Minister to present the extreme argument about an organisation collapsing for want of support during an investigation. He shakes his head at the word "extreme", but his argument does seem to me extreme. Does he concede that without new clause 17 there will be nothing to cover such organisations?

Nick Raynsford: No, for the reasons that I shall give—but first let me put it on record that I was not presenting an extreme scenario. Having worked for many years in the voluntary sector, I know only too well how difficult life is for voluntary organisations that are dependent on local authorities. If malicious complaints are made about voluntary organisations and their funding is withdrawn, their whole operation can be threatened.
	The position in relation to youth clubs is important, and I undertook to make it clear. The guidance issued by the DFES is primarily for schools. There are clear reasons for that. Parents have a right to expect a framework to exist to provide adequate protection for their children while they are in school. By contrast, attendance at youth clubs and other facilities providing recreation and social and physical training is voluntary. Many are run by Churches and voluntary organisations, and it is for parents to decide whether they wish their children to attend them. Nevertheless, the guidance specifically refers to youth workers and other professionals.
	The guidance makes it clear that schools should work in partnership with the wider community and that health professionals, social workers, youth workers and peer educators working in schools should abide by the school's policy on sex education. The guidance also states that it would be inappropriate for any professional providing sex education to promote a particular sexuality. To quote paragraph 6.7 of the guidance:
	"It is inappropriate for youth workers, as with any professional, to promote sexual orientation. They will be expected to respect this guidance when dealing with school age children. Individual views should not affect the independent advice given to the young person concerned."
	The guidance has been the subject of plaudits from hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) emphasised the fact that it is well written and balanced. Guidance to youth workers is also available from other nationally recognised bodies. For example, the National Youth Agency has produced materials that can help to inform sexual relationship education work by youth workers.
	The position that I have described is the correct and responsible one. Guidance sets out what we expect of those who deal with children, while reflecting parents' role in deciding whether their children attend youth clubs and other facilities provided outside schools, many of which are not provided by local authorities. In our view, authorities should act as community leaders. They know what is expected of them and they should act responsibly. They should not promote any specific lifestyle choice, but they should be able to provide services that meet local needs and support organisations that meet the needs of their communities. The new clause is misguided and unnecessary.
	New clause 21 would require a local authority, in exercising any of its functions in relation to school age children, to ensure that there was a balanced presentation of views in any case in which the morality of sex outside marriage was raised as an issue. That is an unnecessary proposal. I have already made the basic points. Local authorities have no say over what sex and relationship education is taught in schools. The guidance to which I have referred was described as reasonable and balanced by the hon. Member for Cotswold. As I have already said, we expect professionals operating in non-school settings to respect the guidance when working with young people of school age. There is no evidence that those arrangements are not working satisfactorily, and the House should reject this inoperable and unnecessary proposal.
	Amendment No. 37 is palpably a delaying mechanism designed to defer commencement of the repeal of section 28. It proposes that before repeal happens, the Secretary of State should certify that sexual relationship education guidance has been issued—that seems curious, given that I have a copy here and it has been available for three years—and that a mechanism should be established to allow parents to be balloted on the school's policy. The first requirement is wholly redundant. As for the second, the Education Act 1996 requires that schools work with parents in devising their sex education policies and that schools' statements on their policies are made available to parents. The guidance specifically addresses the issue of parental involvement and makes it clear that that should be ongoing, saying that it is "essential" that parents be regularly consulted on sex education in schools, especially when the contents are being reviewed. Those arrangements are between schools and parents. Section 28 has no bearing on them.
	In the light of that, and of parents' ability to withhold their children from sex education lessons, we believe that balloting parents, quite apart from being bureaucratic, costly and potentially divisive, is an unnecessary requirement. An effective sex and relationship education programme is not a matter for crosses on ballot papers, which could, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) rightly said, turn out to be a recipe for homophobia.
	We have established a successful and robust framework that ensures that clear guidance is in place, allows for some local discretion on the part of governors and head teachers in consultation with parents to ensure that what is taught reflects local cultural traditions, and draws on the professionalism of teachers and others who work with children. In the evidently very rare cases in which parents feel that the approach to teaching about sex and relationships is unsuitable for their child, they can withhold their child. There are sufficient protections in place.
	The case for repeal of section 28 is clear. It serves no useful purpose, it is a relic of a less enlightened age, it is offensive and it should go. There is no need for further delay. I hope that the House will overwhelmingly reject these inappropriate amendments and approve clause 119, which repeals section 28.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: There have been some strong and impassioned speeches expressing sincerely held views. It is clear that the House will be asked whether to retain section 2A. If it votes to retain the Bill as it emerged from Committee, without section 2A, it is clear that some safeguards are needed—[Hon. Members: "No."] I have made it clear that material emanates from health authorities, circulates and can be accessed by children of an inappropriate age. One of the key points in the guidance is that material should be suitable for children of a particular age. We are talking about the protection of children. Children's welfare and their moral upbringing should be paramount.

John Bercow: May I say politely to my hon. Friend that he offered not a scintilla of evidence that the material to which he objects is being used by teachers in schools? Does he accept that the danger of the ballot proposal is that it goes way beyond the right to withdraw one's own child from sex education, and creates a new right at which most people would baulk—that one should be able to vote to deny other people's children the sex education they deserve?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sorry that my hon. Friend made that intervention. He of all people should respect the pluralism represented by the ballot box. If a majority of parents in a ballot express the view that the materials are unsuitable, that is democracy working and the material should be taken away and rewritten. If they do so again, it is wholly right that the Secretary of State, who writes the guidance that my hon. Friend admires so much, and about which there have been no complaints in the past six months, should replace that guidance and those national materials.
	If section 2A is to be abolished, the safeguards in place are not strong enough. The Minister did not make out a strong enough case regarding protection in youth clubs. He says that they are included in the guidance already laid out in connection with the Education Act 1996, but section 403 of that Act refers specifically to maintained schools, not to other bodies funded by local authorities, so they are not covered. Attendance at them might be voluntary, but they are not covered. If youth clubs started to use the type of materials to which I referred, they would not be outside the law. There is a lacuna, and the right hon. Gentleman must address it.
	The Minister should also examine the health guidance. He arrogantly refused to look at the letter that I gave him. If he does so—I will write to him enclosing a copy of that letter—he will see that he must provide clarification. I am sure that my colleagues in another place will take up the matter. There is a muddle. Section 403(1C) says:
	"Guidance under subsection (1A) must include guidance about any material which may be produced by NHS bodies for use for the purposes of sex education in schools."
	The law is unclear.
	Finally, the Minister did not deal properly with abolishing section 104 of the Local Government Act 2000, which relates to bullying. If there is no safeguard in that respect, we will be in great difficulty.
	My hon. Friends will make up their own minds—there will be a free vote—but there are still problems to be dealt with and more safeguards that must be established. If those safeguards are not put in place, I have no doubt that my noble Friends in another place will send the matter back to this House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 356.

Question accordingly negatived.
	It being after half-past Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to order [25 February], then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.
	Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 70, line 41, leave out Clause 119.—[Mr. Leigh.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 368.

Question accordingly negatived.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No.2, in page 70, line 32 leave out Clause 118.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No.26, in page 110 [Schedule 7], leave out lines 16 to 18.
	Amendment No.27, in page 72, line 22 [Clause 125], leave out '118'.
	Amendment No.28, in page 72 [Clause 125], leave out lines 25 to 28.
	Amendment No.29, in page 74, line 31 [Clause 126], leave out '113 and 118(a)' and insert 'and 113'.
	Amendment No.30, in page 74, line 33 [Clause 126], leave out from 'the' to 'section' in line 36 and insert
	'entry in Schedule 7 relating to'.

Philip Hammond: The context in which the House is considering these changes to the Fire Services Act 1947 is well known: the rumbling dispute between the Fire Brigades Union and the fire service employers that flared into action in the last quarter of last year and which, sadly, looks as though it might re-ignite in the near future, if press speculation is to be believed. From that dispute stemmed the Government's commissioning of the Bain report on the modernisation of the fire service, and I shall return in a moment to the question of what modernisation means.
	The Government's view is clearly that subsections 3 to 8 of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947—the parts of the Act that provide for the Secretary of State to give his approval to certain aspects of establishment schemes—should cease to have effect. Clause 118 of the Bill will effectively remove a large chunk of section 19 of the 1947 Act and place at least the notional power to change deployments of fire appliances and fire fighters, to close fire stations and open new ones, and to alter manning levels, into the hands of local fire authorities. I should like to make it clear at the outset that Conservative Members have absolutely no wish to stand in the way of the genuine modernisation of the fire service. There is consensus among fire service employers that there is a need to remove section 19, for many of the reasons that the Minister will no doubt outline in a few moments.
	The reason for tabling amendment No. 2 is a rather technical one, but it will be clear to anyone who has read the Standing Committee proceedings. When the Government introduced what is now clause 118, which will scrap section 19 of the Fire Services Act, the Minister made it clear that an understanding of the Government's intentions would depend critically on the draft guidance that would be issued to fire authorities on how they should go about developing their integrated risk management plans, and how they should consult the local community and stakeholders on those draft plans.
	As the Minister was unable to let the Committee see a draft at that stage, the Committee was unable to do its duty of scrutinising the Government's intent—the words in the Bill are not terribly informative.
	The Minister gave a commitment in Committee to do his best to ensure that he could place the draft guidance at the disposal of the House before we considered the clause on Report. My hon. Friends and I tabled amendment No. 2 simply to allow the House to debate the issue, consider the draft guidance and discuss the issues arising from a review of it. I shall raise some specific issues in a moment, but I ask the Minister—no doubt he intends to do this anyway, but we should avoid any doubt—to make clear to the House what discussions have taken place between the Government, the employers and the FBU on the draft guidance, which he placed in the Library of the House last Wednesday and which will form the basis of the development of integrated risk management plans.
	Amendment No. 2 has attracted the signatures of what I can describe only as a wide cross-section of opinion in the House, ranging from my hon. Friends and I to Labour Members who are not normally noted for their inclination to agree with Conservative Front Benchers on many issues. I have made it clear that, through tabling the amendment, we intend to allow proper consideration of the Government's guidance. [Interruption.] As the Minister has helpfully reminded me, some of those Labour Members are not always known for their willingness to agree with the sentiments expressed from the Government Front Bench, either.
	Our purpose is clear—to allow proper consideration and debate in the light of the draft guidance—but other Members, in adding their names to the amendment, may have other intentions. They will no doubt make them clear in due course. I am extremely grateful to Labour Members for tabling all the consequential amendments, which I would otherwise have had to work out and table for myself. I do not know whether they are responsible for the amendments or whether they had outside assistance, but what they have done is extremely welcome.
	The revocation of section 19 of the 1947 Act could have been a tidying-up exercise in the context of an agreed settlement of the wider dispute, which has been rumbling on for the best part of a year, but, after seeing the reaction to the offer tabled by the employers last week—it looks set to be rejected by the FBU—it seems that the dispute is not about to end and there is a clear possibility of further strikes in the near future, including during military action, which may occur in or around Iraq.
	If I may, I shall put two specific questions to the Minister, and I hope that he is prepared to deal with those wider issues. First, in the circumstances that the country finds itself in, are the Government now prepared to make a commitment to use the powers available to them either under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, although they have disputed that that power is available to Ministers, or through the medium of the declaration of a state of emergency to ensure that no fire strike, which would place additional burdens on our military, naval and air forces, is allowed to take place while military action is under way in the Persian gulf?
	Conservative Members believe that it is deplorable that any trade union would even consider, or certainly threaten, such irresponsible action at a time like this, when military forces would have to provide cover to protect the civilian population in the event of a strike and against the threat of any terrorist or enemy action at home during any military action abroad. I urge the Minister to make an unequivocal statement of the Government's intentions.
	Secondly, will the Minister deal with press reports, which Members on both sides of the House have read, of refusals by the FBU in some areas to allow training on and commissioning of decontamination units, which have been bought at considerable public expense to protect the public in the event of a chemical or biological attack on this country? Can he confirm whether those press reports are true and that the FBU has prevented work on those things from going ahead in some areas? What action will he take to ensure that such risks to preparedness for a terrorist attack are eliminated?
	In the absence of a settlement of the dispute, the revocation of section 19 becomes one more step in the conduct of that dispute. It was about pay—the FBU originally claimed a 40 per cent. increase—but it became linked to the Government's modernisation agenda, although there is a clear difference of opinion about what modernisation really means. What is clear is that the Government see local risk-based redeployment of resources as the key to modernisation of the fire service. For that reason, they wish to remove the section so that the Secretary of State would no longer have a role in sanctioning such locally determined reallocations of resources.
	However, one of the principal problems throughout that long-running dispute—the proposal to scrap section 19 simply underlines it—has been local fire authorities' notional responsibility for running the fire service and dealing with the fire service employees—the fire workers, as we have come to call them in the House. The reality is that effective control is exercised by central Government through their control of the purse strings. We saw that clearly in the early hours of Friday 22 November, when the Government pulled the plug on a settlement that the fire service employers had offered to the FBU and which the FBU was apparently minded to accept.
	Immediately after that, we heard the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister going on the record to declare that any settlement above the 4 per cent. inflation-linked settlement that had already been offered had to be self-financing through modernisation of the fire service. I urge Members to remember those words of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—"self-financing through modernisation".
	The fire service employers are apparently responsible for negotiating a settlement of the dispute. Now, with the integrated risk management plans, local fire authorities are, apparently, supposed to make risk-based assessments as the basis for identifying the resources required to provide appropriate community safety and fire cover in their areas. That is what the Government guidance tells us, but the Prime Minister himself has already made it clear that the settlement of the fire service dispute must be financed through modernisation.
	Thus the Prime Minister has corrupted not only the word "modernisation", which is the word that has been most corrupted by new Labour over the past six years, but the process of risk assessment, which the Government guidance document is all about, by preordaining the outcome. If a higher-than-inflation settlement of the firefighters' pay claim is agreed, the integrated risk management plans, which are supposed to be risk based rather than resource driven, must conclude that fewer resources are required.
	What would a cynic—not that there are any in this place, Mr. Deputy Speaker—make of clause 118 and the proposal to abolish section 19? A cynic would fear that local politicians are to be invited to take responsibility from the Secretary of State for the politically unpopular cuts in services that are possibly to be dictated by a central Government finance settlement based on the Prime Minister's and the Deputy Prime Minister's declaration of the need for any settlement to be self-financing through modernisation.

Nick Palmer: I am trying hard to follow the hon. Gentleman, but with some difficulty. Is he opposed to a 16 per cent. settlement being mainly self-financed? Is he opposed to the risk-based assessment producing savings? Or is he trying to blame the Government either way?

Philip Hammond: I would certainly not be opposed to a risk-based assessment producing savings if that is what a risk-based assessment produced. Before implementing the risk-based assessment programme, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister said that the settlement must be self-financing through modernisation. I suggest that they are defining modernisation as a reduction in real resources available to the fire service. In a moment, I shall invite the Minister to disabuse the hypothetical cynic of the view that he may take of this whole process.
	The fear is that politically unpopular cuts in service that are dictated from the centre will have to be implemented by local politicians. If that hypothetical cynic were to read the draft guidance on how the locally produced integrated risk management plans are to be developed, his fears would not be allayed. We are told in the guidance that the Government will helpfully provide guidance notes that fire authorities
	"will wish to take into account in the development of integrated risk management plans."
	Moreover, the Government will make available Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate to advise fire authorities, so as to ensure the
	"implementation of a consistent approach."
	Indeed, paragraph 2.7 says that Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate
	"on behalf of Government, should also be consulted on the draft integrated risk management plan."
	The draft guidance gives what can only be described as some not very subtle steers on this locally based programme of risk assessment. Paragraph 3.5.6 says:
	"The policies needed to deliver some improvements could relate to the terms and conditions on which staff are employed as well as to operational matters. How those could be brought into effect is outside the ambit of this guidance. Even if it is currently unclear how or when these could be effected, it is still important to identify them where they are an essential component of delivering improvements to the community."
	Paragraph 3.5.8 says:
	"Before deciding on the emergency response standards to set, you"—
	the fire authorities—
	"will first need to consider whether there are any categories of calls, or circumstances, in which an attendance would be deemed to be inappropriate."
	In paragraph 3.6.1, fire authorities are told that they will wish to
	"consider the appliances and crews you will need to deliver your goals, policies and standards. The properties currently used to house them, i.e. the fire stations, do not in themselves contribute to the emergency response provision ... Fire authorities may wish to consider using other opportunities to meet these needs, particularly in view of the greater flexibility likely to be adopted in some areas".
	It goes on to say rather controversially:
	"The provision of fire stations in every locality to accommodate appliances that may only be in the area for a few hours would clearly be wasteful."
	My cynic would see that as an example of prejudging the review that the guidance is supposed to set up. Paragraph 3.6.2 tells local fire authorities:
	"You may also wish to consider whether some special services might be provided on a re-chargeable basis."
	All that may be true, and fire authorities may indeed wish to consider these matters, but setting them out in the guidance suggests to some people that the Government have prejudged the likely outcome of these reviews.
	In paragraph 3.6.2, the document says categorically that fire authorities should
	"only make changes where it is clear that the overall net effect will be to improve community safety."
	That is flatly contradicted in paragraph 3.2 of the second draft guidance notes, which talks about the public being most interested in those aspects that impinge directly on the service provided to them. It says:
	"This will include those instances when proposed changes will improve the service provided as well as when the reverse occurs, e.g. when resources are redeployed from one location to another".
	That clearly presumes that not all the changes will be in accordance with the exhortation in paragraph 3.6.2 that authorities should make changes only when it is clear that the overall net effect will be to improve community safety.
	The reality for fire authorities, as they embark on this process, is, first, that central Government controls the funding; secondly, that central Government have shown themselves determined to set the parameters for any settlement to this dispute; thirdly, that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have both said that any settlement has to be self-financing; and fourthly, that the understandable conclusion of many observers is that there is a presumption that these integrated risk management plans must call for fewer resources. It would be understandable if an observer were concerned about the transfer to local fire authorities of the power to implement this modernisation, which is likely to be politically painful and controversial if the overall real resources deployed are to be cut.
	The facts are these. A 16 per cent. pay increase by July 2004 was recently offered, presumably with the approval of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I know that officials from the ODPM monitor the negotiations closely. That will not be paid for by staff reductions over that period, especially given the pledge of no redundancies. All the Government have offered the fire service employers is a £30 million transitional funding loan that will be clawed back out of future funding allocations, thus requiring an even greater ultimate reduction in the level of real resource.
	The Government have been silent on allocation issues. The cost of a settlement of this dispute will have an impact on all fire brigades, but the scope for savings through the modernisation programme and the implementation of risk-based management plans will be largely concentrated in the metropolitan and urban area brigades.
	I have five simple questions to put to the Minister in order to assess the genuineness of this process. Are the Government budgeting for the service to cost more or less in total after the introduction of the integrated risk management plans? Will the resource requirements of any properly developed integrated risk management plan be reflected in the formula grant for the local authority that implements it? I hope that this is not the case, but if the Government's proposal merely replaces a national dispute over modernisation and pay with local disputes over specific proposals for resource redeployment, will the Government underwrite the cost of military fire cover for authorities involved in individual disputes? During the national dispute, the Government have met that cost. Indubitably, none of the fire authorities could have afforded to fund the military cover that has been provided if they had been forced to meet that out of their own budgets. It is difficult to see how the Minister expects fire service employers to be able to negotiate appropriately at a local level if the Government will not back them with Government-supported military cover if a dispute unfortunately occurs.
	Will there be a robust regime for measuring the performance of brigades under integrated risk management plans, and how will it work, given that there will no longer be standard performance indicators and therefore no immediate comparability between brigades? If so, will the Government commit themselves to achieving some testing targets for reduction in fire deaths? If they really believe that these risk management plans will deliver greater community safety, can they reassure the public by setting testing targets to show that they have genuine faith in the process on which they have embarked? Otherwise, the watching public may prove to be as cynical as my hypothetical observer.
	Conservative Members will support modernisation and the integrated risk management plans if they are genuinely about improvements to the service, but when the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister said that the settlement had to be self-financing through modernisation, they undermined the case for genuine modernisation. Eighty-five per cent. of the cost of the fire service consists of wages and salaries. That gives rise to a genuine fear that more pay equals fewer jobs and fewer appliances in fire stations. The fear is that the Government have prejudged the review that they are setting in progress. There are real concerns that integrated risk management programmes will not be risk based, but will be driven by cuts in the real resources available as higher pay is financed by lower manpower and fewer appliances. In those circumstances, the local consultation to which the Minister has committed the Government would be a charade. We are well disposed to genuine modernisation, but the Minister must seek to dispel our concerns.

John McDonnell: I know that several hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall try to be brief.
	First, I disabuse any hon. Member of the idea that there has suddenly been an alliance of the socialist Campaign group with elements on the other side of the Chamber. We tabled the amendment unwittingly, not knowing that the other amendment had been tabled.
	For the benefit of those who did not have the enjoyment of serving on the Committee, I want to go through the genesis of the amendment and the background to how it came about. When the Fire Services Act 1947 was introduced, section 19 was identified as a mechanism whereby the Government would be able to ensure that minimum standards of fire cover were maintained by fire authorities, and subsequent guidance ensured that there would be full consultation with local communities prior to any changes in provision. That meant that section 19 ensured that the Secretary of State would need to be consulted on any significant changes and to approve them. However, that applied only in cases where there would be a reduction in cover; no approval would be required if a fire authority wished to increase cover. Approval was required for station closures and changes in practices whereby full-timers, part-timers or pumping appliances would be removed from individual fire stations. The system worked in such a way that no trivial matters were referred to the Secretary of State. It was not about replacing fire stations on existing sites, but about significant changes in local fire cover practices. The same applied in relation to staffing matters—the system was concerned with reductions in firefighter posts, which is of concern to local communities. Time scales were set—usually six weeks—within which the Secretary of State would be required to come back with a decision, or at least an explanation of why the decision had not been made in that time.
	Pertinent to the whole process—I quote from the circular that the Government issued in 1992—was that potential changes should be sufficiently widely publicised in sufficient detail with adequate time to ensure that any interested parties would be able to make representations, and that such representations should be considered by the fire authority. What then happened, of course, was that the Secretary of State became the longstop in terms of any right of appeal for a local community. MPs, local authorities, fire authorities and members of the local community recognised that the Secretary of State could intervene if the local fire authority was trampling over their wishes.
	Changes in the professional environment then followed. In May 2000, the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council agreed to set up a task group to look at section 19 procedures and to develop a strategy for dealing with section 19 applications resulting from any changes in fire cover standards as the service—yes, even at that point—developed its discussions about modernisation. The first meeting of that group was convened by the Home Office on 19 December 2000. It agreed its terms of reference, and there were four meetings. At its final meeting on 20 December 2001, the fire policy unit said that it would produce a report on whether the circular should be amended or replaced and on how, if the risk-based standards were introduced, section 19 procedures would then be either sustainable or changed.

Nick Palmer: Can my hon. Friend tell me on how many occasions since 1991 the Home Secretary has overturned a proposal?

John McDonnell: It has been very rare for applications even to reach the Secretary of State, because fire authorities operated in the knowledge that they would ultimately have to be accountable to the Secretary of State. That is the effectiveness of an appeal mechanism.
	The task group was established specifically to review section 19 and the fire policy unit was to produce the report, yet no report was produced, although the chairmanship and the secretariat was in the hands of the Government. The fire cover review produced by the task group concluded that section 19 was not a barrier to the introduction of risk-based emergency cover. Included in that task group were representatives from Government, Her Majesty's inspector of fire services, the employers' organisations, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and, of course, the Fire Brigades Union.
	Then, Bain came along. The Government's proposal to amend the legislation comes directly from Bain. It drives to the heart of the contradiction of the Bain inquiry and report, because Bain is either a considered assessment and proposed programme of reform of the organisation and management of the fire service or it is part of the negotiating process to settle a pay dispute—it cannot be both. The tragedy of Bain is that it is being used for both purposes, ultimately not particularly effectively. Bain made several recommendations and proposals concerning the planning and future provision of fire cover. It recommended the establishment of new institutions to consider risk management, to advise Secretaries of State, and to bring forward a level of expertise in that advice through the fire service college and a new role for the inspectorate. Bain said that the move to allocate resources according to risk would not require legislation. Then, Bain moved beyond being a body that recommended improvements in fire cover and professional management into the negotiating process, saying that if full efficiency gains are to be unlocked by the use of new models of fire cover, the Government must repeal section 19 of the 1947 Act.
	That is the crux of tonight's debate. Bain's recommendation was not about the introduction of risk management to improve the overall service; it stemmed from the Government's demand from Government for resource-driven reform. That meant that Bain had to come up with some process by which those resources, through supposed modernisation savings, were identified rapidly. The Bain report had to deliver the removal of what the Secretary of State would describe as "encumbrances" to achieving cuts. It is appalling that that recommendation has been brought forward before all the other Bain recommendations. We were promised—and Bain recommended it—that a White Paper giving a new legislative base for the fire service would be published by Easter. Most of us have been arguing for that for a long time. The FBU was involved in discussions with Government on a draft White Paper. It was not published but Ministers commended the fire service for its exemplary modernising practices over the years.
	We now have one section of Bain being brought forward before a comprehensive analysis of what new fire safety legislation should look like. Why? Because Bain has to find £140 million of cuts in the pay bill. That is what this is all about. For opportunistic reasons, we are dragging a proper assessment of the reform of the fire service into the mud of a pay negotiation. If we are to have reform of the fire service, let us have a proper and appropriate process. Let us establish bodies to consider the professional practices that we want. Let us consider changes proposed in a White Paper or new legislation; but, Oh Government, do not come here and seek to bounce through the sorts of changes in this Bill. They will result in cuts in fire cover, in firefighters' posts and, indeed, in the numbers of fire stations.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman knows that my hon. Friends and I disagree with much of what he is saying, but there is one point of agreement. Is it not ironic that the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that he would be willing to use powers to impose a settlement from Whitehall, but that tonight he is trying to remove the Secretary of State's powers in other areas?

John McDonnell: It is ironic that, at the same time as the Minister was waxing lyrical about reform that would place devolved power in the hands of the local fire authorities, as I note he did in one of the meetings of the Committee, the Secretary of State was interfering in the dispute to prevent a settlement—which but for his intervention would have been arrived at last November.

David Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in effect, we are talking about national negotiations and conditions? Local authorities have no choice but to consider the 15 per cent. that they are left with, which can only mean various cuts in, for example, fire boards.

John McDonnell: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that the changes to the Fire Services Act 1947 that the Government have proposed will result in local fire authorities seeking to introduce practices in the fire services that will demand local negotiation. Thus it will be sought to break the power of a union that has represented its members well and has worked effectively with the Government, up until this dispute, to promote reform of the fire service that would deliver increased professionalism and effectiveness.
	Our anxiety as MPs was to ensure that Government listened to the wishes of our local communities. We were told in Committee that guidance would be produced to ensure that local consultation would continue. That guidance was placed in the House of Commons Library three working days ago. I believe that most people only picked it up today. The guidance has no teeth. It says what it expects of fire authorities, but nothing more. There is no legal requirement for consultation. We are told that, if a local fire authority acts unreasonably, the local community can seek judicial review. Judicial review costs, on average, £15,000 just to get cases into court—and that is not to mention the possible subsequent costs. Judicial review is no remedy for the local working-class community that is about to lose its fire station and needs a voice or a protector against a fire authority, under the cosh because of Government cuts, that wishes to close services.
	The Government should give us time to consider the guidance. They should pull back from their position and allow this amendment to go through. They should give us time to consult properly on the guidance, as they promised. We want national uniformity and consistency of standards. However—and we say this clearly to the Government—individual MPs in individual communities will not stand by and allow their local fire stations to be closed. They expect Government to work with them. They expect the Secretary of State to protect communities. I find it bizarre that the Secretary of State wants to give up his role in vetoing outrageous local policies for the fire services, but that central Government, as we heard last week when debating local government finance, are trying to retain their power to control the level of rates that local authorities can set.
	Tonight we are asking Government to hear the message that local communities should retain a voice. We need to have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. We have such a right in education, when schools are threatened with closure; we have it in health when hospitals are threatened with closure; but we do not have it in the police or ambulance services. There were horrendous problems, especially in the ambulance service, in my constituency and London overall. We needed Government intervention to protect local communities, but they did not have the powers. The provision gives rise to the suspicion that it clears a path for the Government to implement a massive cuts package as a result of the wage negotiations. I will not be a party to that and will not allow them to introduce proposals that aid and abet something that is driving down the working conditions and the wages of firefighters.

Edward Davey: Liberal Democrats have many concerns about the way in which the Government have dealt with the fire dispute. We have often questioned them about their role—in particular how they will handle transitional funding. We have been concerned about the fact that Ministers have said different things and have sometimes not spoken with one voice. I agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and hope that the Minister responds to him. In particular, I am interested to learn who would fund military cover if local disagreements lead to local industrial action by the FBU.
	We are concerned that the Government are, to an extent, prejudging the integrated risk management programmes by setting them in stone. If the analysis shows that more money is required to maintain or increase community safety in an area, they need to be clear that that money will be forthcoming. Equally, however, we are worried about the FBU's behaviour throughout the dispute. It did not accept the latest offer on the table although it was reasonable, and I hope that it will not go ahead with strikes, especially at this time.
	I was concerned to read in the FBU's briefing note sent to Members of Parliament tonight that if we maintain clause 118
	"This will mean the withdrawal of the right of local communities, local councillors, and local MPs to have a say on the closure of local fire stations, the removal of fire-engines and cut-backs on the number of firefighters."
	If that were true, I would have voted against it in Committee and would vote against it tonight, but we have to make our decisions on the basis of truth and what information is available to us. I have read guidance notes 1 and 2 and it is clear that there will be full and open consultation. Let me set out what form that will take because, although we have not discussed it so far, it is germane to the debate. The consultation is vital. If there were no consultation—no due process—to consider a change in the configuration of local fire services, that would be a huge problem. It would mean that those of us who want to campaign against the closure of a fire station or the removal of a fire appliance in our constituency would have no mechanism to represent our communities if they were concerned about such proposals; but from my reading of the guidance notes that is not the case.
	Relevant sections of the guidance notes show that consultation is required. Guidance note 1 is sent to chief fire officers. Paragraph 2.4 states:
	"Consultation with the community you serve and your staff will be an essential element in the preparation of"
	the integrated risk management plan. In the guidance note on consultation itself, the Government go into detail on how that should be undertaken and they set out who should be consulted and on what. The guidance covers the draft integrated risk management programme, the annual action plans and changes to them, examples of proposals for changes, who should be consulted on them and the best way to consult. I refer hon. Members to the note because it sets out exactly what consultation there must be. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) implied that the consultation could take place if the fire authorities choose to do that, but in fact there is a statutory requirement for them to do so. I looked up section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999—the best value authority legislation. It requires best value authorities—fire authorities are defined as a best value authority in section 1 of that Act—to undertake consultation. The guidance note refers to that. There is clear protection for our communities and for us as Members of Parliament in the requirement that consultation must take place.
	Although I agreed with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, I thought that at times he quoted selectively from the guidance notes. Paragraph 3.6.2 of guidance note 2 provided me with some reassurance. The hon. Gentleman might suggest that I am naive to be reassured, but if we in this place cannot trust what is in a Government document, we had better give up, as we cannot have proper debate. Paragraph 3.6.2 makes it clear that in the event of any changes resulting in a reconfiguration of the fire service, there must be no reduction in community safety. It states:
	"You should only make changes where it is clear that the overall net effect will be to improve community safety."
	That is a clear safeguard. If it had not been in place, I would have been on my feet tonight asking where it was.

Philip Hammond: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by selective quoting—I quoted exactly the piece that he has just read out to the House.

Edward Davey: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman then chose one or two other excerpts, which did not make his point fully. He should have quoted the full paragraph from which they were taken. He asked, rightly, how national standards would be measured in future. The guidance note refers to national performance measures. That reflects the 1999 Act, which allows the Minister to put forward performance measures—output measures, in the jargon—that fire authorities would have to meet. If they did not, they would be failing in their legal responsibilities. That clearly underpins the framework.

Nick Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman's Whip has just told me that I must shut up in a second, so I shall bring my remarks to an end.
	I have some questions to the Minister, to which I should like answers to reassure me that the framework that he is setting in place is sufficient. The guidance notes are fairly clear about what will happen in the first round of integrated risk management plans. However, clause 118 will get rid of the safeguard for all time, or until another Parliament seeks to restore it, so what about future integrated risk management plans? What is the process for future consultation on those? What consultation on national performance measures is envisaged by the Minister? The guidance note refers to a future guidance note, but we do not have that in front of us, and those national performance measures will be important.
	The guidance notes say little about the post-consultation period and what will happen with respect to decisions taken by the local fire authority, how it will held to account, and how those decisions will be published. If there is to be local accountability, as we agreed with the Minister that there should be, he needs to say more about the post-consultation period than the one paragraph in the current guidance notes. Can he confirm, as I asked him in Committee, that if a consultation process does not follow the guidance notes and the 1999 Act, the FBU and local communities could seek judicial review of that decision? That is an important safeguard. I know that judicial review costs a lot of money, but the FBU is more than capable of funding such a review. If its members were prepared to forgo a few dinners, they could afford it without difficulty.

David Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, I will not give way. I am trying to bring my remarks to a close. I was concerned that the guidance did not include more requirements for greater collaboration—

Joan Walley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many people wanted to speak in this debate, and we are fast approaching the time when wind-ups will take place. Will you look again at our arrangements so that, when we have pure discussions of this kind, Members who wish to get involved have opportunities to contribute?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will understand that that is determined by the Programming Committee, and that the general question of allocation of time must be tackled through the usual channels.

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady will know that I am taking less than half the time that was taken by the Conservative Front Bench.
	My final question to the Minister on the guidance notes is in relation to collaboration between local fire authorities and, for example, bodies that are involved in providing transport or bodies that are involved in community safety partnerships. A lot of the improvement in the fire service, in terms of community safety and prevention, will come through such collaboration. The guidance notes are very weak on that aspect, and they must be tightened up when they are finalised.
	In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats support the inclusion of clause 118 in the Bill, which gives a greater decentralist flavour to the way in which we will run local fire services in future. I hope that the Minister will give proper answers, both to my questions and to those of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), so that we can be assured that proper consultation measures will be in place.

Nick Raynsford: I shall do my best to answer the many questions that have been raised. If time gets the better of me, and I cannot deal with everything tonight, I shall write to all hon. Members who raised questions.

Joan Walley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Nick Raynsford: I have just begun. I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, but I should make a little progress.
	We have had a useful debate, as we did in Committee, about this important element in the overall package of reform for the fire service recommended by the independent review. Before I deal with the details of the repeal of part of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, I would like to put that in the context of the current dispute. Following discussions at ACAS, the local authority employers tabled last Thursday an offer that holds out the prospect of a 16 per cent. increase in average pay by July 2004 in exchange for modernisation of working practices. That is, by any measure, a generous offer, and goes to the very limit of what local authorities can afford. Indeed, it offers substantially more to firefighters than the 7.8 per cent. deal over two years accepted by other local authority employees last year.
	I sincerely hope that, despite the views being expressed by the Fire Brigades Union executive, the union's membership will recognise that this is a good deal. They have nothing to gain by refusing the offer. Indeed, refusal would risk another unproductive period of conflict from which no one can gain, and which would inevitably impact adversely on the public. At this particularly sensitive time, I cannot believe that any reasonable person could want such an outcome.
	Some of those who oppose a settlement have suggested that the necessary reforms to existing working practices, which make possible a pay increase significantly ahead of what would otherwise be available, involve unacceptable changes—

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Government wish to make a statement on the Fire Brigades Union dispute on the pay issue, may I suggest that they bring forward a statement at the appropriate time, rather than abusing the process of this Bill procedure?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As far as I can rule on this matter, the debate appears to be in order. I am sure that the Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Nick Raynsford: Indeed, I did, and I also heard the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who specifically asked me to respond on this issue. I am only surprised that my hon. Friend does not want to hear these important points.
	It is simply not the case that the reforms of working practices would involve unacceptable changes to firefighters' terms and conditions. The proposed changes allow a more flexible approach that will enable fire authorities to respond more effectively to today's risks and challenges. That will not mean tearing up all the terms and conditions enjoyed by most firefighters. Firefighters would continue to work, as they do now, an average 42-hour week. The majority could continue on the same shift system that applies now. Some would have the option of changing working patterns: for example, to work days only, as some wish to do. Some would be able to work overtime if they wanted. Nor will local fire chiefs be free to impose draconian changes on firefighters without regard to national considerations, as some who are hostile to a settlement suggest.
	As I will make clear in a moment, we will issue guidance on how local fire authorities can best approach the development of integrated risk management plans. Her Majesty's fire services inspectorate will take a close interest, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will work closely with the Local Government Association to ensure fair implementation of the new arrangements.
	Those are commonsense reforms in line with what is happening in almost every other sector of our economy, and they would ensure a better service to the public, as well as enabling firefighters to receive a substantial pay increase. I hope that the deal will be accepted and that the FBU will engage constructively in the reform and modernisation process, as it is both necessary and inevitable.
	I turn now to specific subject of the debate. The purpose of clause 118 is to remove the requirement in section 19(4) of the Fire Services Act 1947 for fire authorities to seek the Secretary of State's approval before making any reduction, no matter how minor, in the number of firefighting posts, or before closing fire stations or withdrawing fire appliances.

David Hamilton: The Minister refers to the 7.5 per cent. offer that has been made, but does he agree that 16 per cent is far short of the 22 per cent. increase that was given to teachers in Scotland, along with a modernisation deal?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend will know that Scottish matters are devolved—I cannot speak for Scotland and do not intend to—but by contrast with the offer made to local authority employees in England, the offer made by the employers to the FBU last week is generous.
	The proposed repeal is a key element in the replacement of the existing, outdated and over-centralised framework for fire cover. That framework is out of keeping with the aim of a modern fire service, where resources are flexibly deployed to meet locally identified risks to life and property. Repealing section 19 and the early introduction of a new risk-based approach to fire cover, recommended by Bain, offer a real prospect of reducing the incidence of fire, and deaths and injuries from fire.

Nick Palmer: Although I do not agree with the savage attack on the FBU made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I share the concern that, in removing the Home Secretary's theoretical power, we might weaken the power of local councillors and Members of Parliament to react to proposals. Can the Minister reassure us on that point?

Nick Raynsford: I will cover precisely that point in a moment if my hon. Friend will bear with me.
	Decisions should be taken by democratically accountable fire authorities, acting on the professional advice of chief fire officers and after taking account of the local community's views. The Government do not believe that the Secretary of State should take those decisions in a modern fire service. I heard the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but the most recent case that came to us involved a proposal to transfer a station from one location in the area to another; there was no change in the number of appliances or in crewing. That disproves his claim that section 19 was not about unnecessary or trivial matters being referred to the Secretary of State.

Joan Walley: It is important that the Government do not go ahead with something that is premature, that does not provide the flexibility that will be needed and that could pre-empt achieving a joint partnership agreement to resolve the firefighters dispute. Surely a decision on all that should be taken at one time; it should not pre-empt an agreement.

Nick Raynsford: The Bain review explored all those issues in considerable detail and made a series of recommendations that has been widely welcomed by almost every fire interest in the country, apart from the FBU. As we are faced with a clear recommendation from the Bain inquiry, it would be extremely perverse to ignore it and not to proceed rapidly to repeal section 19. That is why we are acting now.
	In the fire service of the future, a flexible risk-based approach to fire cover will be achieved through the implementation of locally determined integrated risk management plans, within the framework of national guidance. I explained in Committee that Her Majesty's fire services inspectorate was preparing guidance on the implementation of such plans, including arrangements for local consultation. I gave an undertaking that, barring unforeseen circumstances, hon. Members would have access to that draft guidance before considering the Bill on Report, and I am pleased to have been able to satisfy that commitment.
	The fire service is widely respected for its performance in meeting the attendance times set out in the national standards for fire cover, but that will not necessarily deliver the reduction in deaths and injuries that should be our priority. Indeed, as recently published statistics show, the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by fire sadly increased in the last 12 months reported—the 12 months ending in March last year. To reverse that trend, we need to move beyond the 1947 standards. Those standards have their origin in the Riverdale committee of 1936 and were recommended to fire authorities more than 50 years ago. They are based on the characteristics of property and buildings in an area, not on the risk of death and injury from fire.
	The current standards do not, as Bain noted, reflect the changes in our cities since 1947: the falling population in town centres, the growth of suburbs and the movement of people to city centres in daytime and returning to the suburbs at night. They do not reflect the changing nature and location of industry or more effective fire safety measures. For example, smoke alarms and sprinklers are now found in many buildings. For much of the time, the current standards determine that fire service resources are targeted on protecting unoccupied buildings and not on ensuring the most effective response to the needs of people who might be at risk.
	The current standards are also based on inputs. The Bain review recommended rightly that we need, as a matter of urgency, to move away from this inflexible and formulaic approach to one that puts the emphasis on outputs and outcomes in terms of lives saved and injuries prevented, that is responsive to locally identified risks and needs, that is concerned with a wide range of threats to community safety and that accelerates the move from intervention to prevention.
	The repeal will not alter a fire authority's statutory responsibility to provide an efficient service. That will remain by virtue of section 1 of the 1947 Act. Nor will it mean that fire authorities will no longer consult about the deployment of resources. One of the more regrettable features of the propaganda against our proposals has been the suggestion—repeated by the FBU in its brief to Members that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) quoted—that the repeal of part of section 19 will mean no consultation with the local community. There is absolutely no truth in this claim, as he made clear.
	The guidance provides the national framework under which fire authorities will be able to prepare local integrated risk management plans that are tailored to the risks and safety needs of the local community. We shall consult in the immediate future on the draft guidance, and we would very much welcome an input from the key stakeholders. Comments made by hon. Members tonight will certainly be taken into account when we consider the responses to the consultation.
	Following the consultation, we envisage that the definitive guidance should be published in June, that fire authorities should produce a draft integrated risk management plan in September and that they should consult their local communities, employees and other interested parties over the following three months. There are a number of safeguards in the new arrangements to ensure consistency of approach, without inhibiting local flexibility and decision making. The integrated risk management plans are, as I explained, being drawn up within a framework of national guidance. Her Majesty's fire services inspectorate will be one of the bodies consulted by fire authorities, and it will establish a specialist team to provide advice, training and support to authorities. It will also examine and disseminate examples of innovation and good practice and continue to monitor the performance of authorities in providing effective fire cover arrangements.
	In addition, fire authorities must have regard to their general duty, under the best value provisions of the Local Government Act 1999, to secure continuous improvement in the way that their functions are exercised. That is the response to the question from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge about how we will ensure that there are proper standards. I have covered much of the ground, but I have not been able to answer several questions. I will write to hon. Members on those points.
	The new approach that we are seeking to introduce will deliver a fire service that is better placed to deliver community safety and one that offers a real prospect of reducing the incidence of fire, and deaths and injuries from fire. I hope that hon. Members will endorse that approach and support clause 118.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister for offering to write to me with replies to the questions that he did not manage to answer. As I said earlier, Conservative Members are disposed to support the modernisation process. We are dismayed only because it has become mixed up with financing a pay settlement. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister will have only themselves to blame if the public become suspicious of the motives for modernisation.
	We support genuine modernisation and we acknowledge the fire employers' support for clause 118. I shall not press the amendment. However, we will watch closely as matters unfold. We shall not hesitate to cry foul if it becomes clear that my hypothetical cynical observer is right and the process becomes resource rather than risk driven.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 22, Noes 318.

Question accordingly negatived.
	It being after Nine o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [25 February], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill has been extensively debated in Committee, on Report last Wednesday and today, and on Second Reading in January. We have had a wide range of interesting, detailed debates on the large number of varied subjects that are the characteristic of the Bill, which covers an enormous range of issues of concern to local government.
	This is an important deregulatory measure that extends significant new freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities, as well as removing unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. The new prudential regime, which provides for a fundamental change in the capital borrowing powers of local authorities and introduces new freedom and flexibility for authorities to undertake capital projects, has been widely welcomed. Indeed, local government is particularly keen for the Bill to be enacted in time for those measures to be introduced from April 2004. There are other important new freedoms, such as new powers for local authorities to charge for discretionary services and to trade. The better a local authority's performance, the more freedom it will have.
	New ways in which local authorities can work in partnership with business to improve the environment for their local community are being made possible through the Bill's provisions on business improvement districts. Businesses will also benefit from the new financial incentives being given to authorities to promote business growth, and we are making life easier for small businesses through provisions for small business rate relief.
	We have had the opportunity to make important reforms on topical issues of real concern to hon. Members. In particular, this evening's debate on section 28 demonstrated that there is a substantial majority in favour of abolition. That was confirmed by the votes in the House tonight and in Committee: there was an overwhelming majority in favour of reform in both. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition chose to vote against that important reform, which will remove an offensive piece of legislation that causes deep concern to many people in this country.
	We have also made important changes in relation to the fire service, with reforms designed to focus on outputs and outcomes in terms of saving lives and preventing injury. Our objective is to provide a new fire service that is properly related to modern circumstances and in which local decisions can inform the development of the service to respond to local needs. That is our objective not only for the fire service, but for all local services.
	In the words of the Local Government Association,
	"the proposals in the Bill represent significant new freedoms for local councils and will help them deliver improved services to their communities."
	I believe that the Bill will be seen as another important step in improving opportunities for local authorities to deliver high-quality services to their communities. Our objective is to help local authorities to do more and to do better, recognising the huge importance of the services that they perform. I commend the Bill to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: At the start of our consideration on Report, we had only 24 minutes in which to discuss four important groups of amendments, which dealt with important topics such as staff transfer matters, including terms and conditions and issues relating to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, and local authority charging and trading. We had hardly any time, and we dealt with only one group of amendments. That is an affront to democracy, and the business managers, especially those on the Government side, must look into it.
	It is unacceptable to our constituents that large chunks of the Bill have not been discussed. For example, in a letter sent on 3 January to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), Mr. Doug Benjafield, the managing director of Cleanaway, a firm in my hon. Friend's constituency, said of charging and trading:
	"It seems to us that Clause 95 could jeopardise the whole process of competitive tendering by enabling such authorities to set up what would be an 'in-house' company to retain or take over certain functions or services".
	He continued:
	"If local authority 'best value' companies are able to cream off successful undertakings, there is a real danger that private sector companies will find it uneconomic to bid for some of the less profitable services, and 'best value' will simply cease to operate in practice."
	Perhaps the Minister would like to intervene, given that the subject has not been discussed by hon. Members, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
	Mr. Benjafield asks several questions:
	"First, how does the concept of 'best value' local authorities being able to set up companies to carry out certain functions or services tie in with the process of competitive tendering?
	Second, what safeguards does the Government intend adopting to ensure that such companies do not receive preferential treatment? Will they be obliged to compete with private sector companies on a 'best value' basis for each contract? How will the Minister ensure a level playing field if they do and will the same criteria be used to assess their performance as is currently used for private sector companies?"
	Those are important questions. Perhaps the Minister will assist the House and facilitate proper consideration of the Bill by answering those questions in a letter to me, and placing a copy in the Library.

Nick Raynsford: I will try to help the hon. Gentleman by giving an instant response. The whole thrust of the legislation is to improve local authorities' ability to work with business, among other groups. We discussed business improvement districts, growth incentives and a range of other measures designed to encourage good relations between local authorities and business. However, we also aim to improve local authorities' efficiency and effectiveness.
	I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be suggesting on behalf of the official Opposition that they oppose the idea of giving power to local authorities that can trade well in services that they deliver efficiently. Are they saying that those authorities should be prevented from doing so? Surely we should all welcome greater efficiency on the part of local authorities delivering services.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I raised the matter on Second Reading, and we think that there could be an element of unfair competition affecting private sector companies facing publicly subsidised councils carrying out their own functions. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister will undertake to see a delegation from Cleanaway with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar; that would be extremely helpful—and he is nodding his head.

Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I shall give way, but only once.

Edward Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there were proper safeguards in respect of accounting practices, his concern could be easily dismissed?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We did not have time to discuss the matter thoroughly, and I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. Cleanaway is one of the best run waste disposal companies, and I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to see a delegation with my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar. Let us see whether we can clear up some of the problems. That would be helpful.
	The Bill materially alters the capital finance regime for local authorities. There is the combination of pooling capital rights and the botched handling of the withdrawal of local authority social housing authority grant. I gather that local authorities, despite all our protests, have not yet been notified of the withdrawal of that grant. The message to debt-free authorities from the Bill and from the Government is that the writing is on the wall.
	That, combined with the controversial measure for the repayment of overhanging debt, for which £800 million is allocated this year for highly indebted authorities in the north—in effect to provide them with a bribe to ensure that they transfer their housing authority stock and have the debt paid off at the same time—is a massive transfer of local authority finance from the south to the north.
	There are other measures in the Bill that we think are deleterious, too. For example, there are the alterations to the non-domestic rating regime. There is the fact that the regime has to be self-financing in each financial year. Transitional relief will have to be paid for within each financial year. Underfunded under-phasing will take place for businesses, large and small, that have lower revaluations. That will put them at a disadvantage.
	Combining all that with a transfer of subsidy from the housing revenue accounts of authorities that are in surplus and well run to authorities in a negative position is a swingeing measure of financial redistribution. I am not sure how much some tenants in the south, who will be subsidising tenants of poorly run councils in the north, will like this provision.
	Perhaps the most controversial measure of all is the amendment to the council tax regime. The Bill heralds regular revaluations for council tax, together with the extension of the number of council tax bands, with no relationship between the top and bottom bands. This will turn what used to be a relatively small item of household expenditure into an extremely significant item, unrelated to the ability to pay.
	I came across some statistics in preparation for yesterday's television programme on the council tax. One third of all the pension increases that pensioners have received during the past six years of the Labour Government will be soaked up in the increases in council tax that the Government have imposed. That is a shocking statistic. When we introduced the tax, it was part personal and part property. It is now becoming a pure property stealth-wealth tax, and there is no relationship between what people pay and their ability to pay. In combination with the acknowledged additional council tax supplement for all the regional bodies that the Government are to introduce, that will mean an extremely nasty stealth tax—one of the biggest that the Government have introduced.
	There are some measures in the Bill that we welcome, including prudential borrowing. Provided that it is done with safeguards, that is wholly in line with our policy of devolving policy down to the lowest possible level, and is an example that can be followed. With reservations, we support the BID—business improvement district—regime, although it is probably limited in effect. In America, such schemes are low value, and work well because the rating system is based on property tax. In Committee we explored the way in which benefit may accrue to property owners, while tenants and lessees will pay.

Nick Raynsford: On the subject of BIDs, the hon. Gentleman has just commented favourably on the American system of local taxation, which is based on property tax. Will he try to explain how that fits in with his earlier comment attacking the council tax—which, incidentally, was introduced by his party and is a mixture of a property tax and a tax relating to people's receipt of local services? Why is a property tax acceptable in America but not here?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That was a mischievous intervention by the Minister, and one of his poorer efforts. As he knows, council tax applies to private individuals who occupy and own houses. We are talking about businesses, so the scenario is entirely different. We want some mechanism by which BIDs can work. We are concerned that there is a substitution affecting what the taxpayer should pay for and what is additional in the BIDs process. Under the timetable imposed by the Government, we did not have a chance to discuss our concerns about the mechanism of council vetoes in BIDs. We would have liked the veto to operate before the vote, as it is unnecessary to go through a complicated ballot only to find that the local authority vetoes the outcome. If we had had sufficient time, without the programme motion, we would certainly have liked to explore that in greater detail.
	We did not have any time to discuss the change of the date of European and local government elections in the Bill—an important matter that was simply squeezed out by the restrictive timetable. Gerrymandering the timing of those elections is quite wrong.

Nick Raynsford: Oh, come on.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister believe in democracy or not? Perhaps he will tell me.

Nick Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is gerrymandering in presenting an option that has been the subject of widespread consultation and brings together local government and European elections in 2004 to try to encourage a higher turnout than the deplorably low turnouts in recent European and local elections?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is gerrymandering because when a term is set for a council it should be adhered to. If one lengthens or shortens it, one is interfering with the democratic right of elected councils to carry out their mandate for a full term. If it is shortened, they do not have an opportunity to complete their mandate. Once the gerrymandering principle is established, what will we gerrymander next? Will the Government extend the term of this Parliament? Whatever next? The principle is poor, and we never had time to discuss it.
	The Bill is a highly centralising measure. It is typical of this socialist Government that they want to try to control everything from Whitehall, from the Secretary of State's office. They simply do not trust local authorities to make their own decisions on finance or anything else. This is a bad Bill, and I shall encourage my hon. Friends to vote against it on Third Reading.

David Lepper: I welcome the Bill. Many of us spent many hours in Committee discussing its provisions, but there were some aspects that we did not have time to discuss. I particularly welcome the decisive cross-party vote tonight on the repeal of section 28. I hope that the cross-party nature of that vote will be noted in another place when it comes to debate this issue, so that we will now see an end to this iniquitous piece of legislation. Before I came to this place, I was a secondary school teacher, and since being elected to Parliament, I have heard from former students how their fear and uncertainty over section 28 added to the misery that they experienced by making them reluctant to seek protection from homophobic bullying when they needed it most. Let us end this regime here and now tonight and through the further passage of the Bill.
	My main point is that I would like to commend part 4 of the Bill, which deals with business improvement districts. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, this legislation will help to bring councils and their business communities together in a new partnership, with guaranteed funding for at least five years, to improve the appearance and prosperity of their areas. As chairman of the steering group overseeing the business improvement districts pilot project, I know the enthusiasm with which more than 20 areas across the country are now preparing schemes which they will get off the ground as soon as the legislation is in place.
	I commend the draft guidance on business improvement districts produced by a score of national organisations and agencies, co-ordinated by the Association of Town Centre Management. That guidance deals comprehensively with such vital issues as the financial management of business improvement districts, and the balloting process for setting them up. Some official Opposition Members found their copies of the guidance document somewhat elusive during our debates in Committee, and some other hon. Members lost their copies through lending them to others. Nevertheless, I know that this full and comprehensive guidance has been much welcomed by all those in the 20-plus constituencies in which BIDs projects are now being prepared, and I know how helpful they have found it when taking forward what I believe to be a bold venture in partnership between business and local authorities. 9.32 pm

Edward Davey: I wish to raise three concerns before I go on to say why my hon. Friends and I will be voting in favour of the Bill. First, some mistakes remain in it, despite our best efforts to amend it. Secondly, there are some omissions from it. Thirdly, there has been a lack of debate on certain crucial parts of it. The mistakes, particularly those in clause 11 that relate to pooling, have been widely debated, and the Liberal Democrats do not accept the Government's arguments. There will be a serious impact on debt-free authorities in particular, especially with money being taken away from them so that they will be unable to tackle the problems of shortages of affordable housing in their areas. The Liberal Democrats, working with the Conservatives, have tried to persuade the Government of this. The Government came forward with a modest package of measures to try to provide some transitional relief, but we do not think that it went far enough.
	We are concerned about some aspects of the Bill that retain a degree of centralisation, especially in regard to the reserve powers retained by the Government with respect to borrowing and the reserves of councils. I also have concerns—some may suggest that they are esoteric—about clause 31, which gives the Government a wide-ranging power to provide grants for local authorities. We are very worried about that; it takes financial powers away from the House and is therefore greatly to be regretted.
	My second area of concern relates to the omissions. When the Government published the draft Bill, they said that it represented an historic change for local government and that there would be a real revolution in the relationship between central and local government. I am afraid that, for many of us, the reality is very timid when set against that rhetoric. Far greater powers need to be given down, and we need to see that happening to restore civic pride and encourage more people of good will and competence to go into local government, whether as councillors or as officials. We also need to see electoral reform in local government, to ensure that it becomes more representative and to prevent the corruption and the monopoly of power associated with one-party local government. Only proportional representation through the single transferable vote system can break that monopoly of political power.
	We need to go far further with our local government finance reforms, and this party wants council tax to be abolished. I find it bizarre that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has criticised the Government's timid reforms of council tax, which will make it a little fairer, because Conservative policy is to retain that incredibly unfair tax. For him to say at this moment—council taxes are going up so much—that he wants to retain the unfairness in the system is extraordinary.
	I make this recommendation to the Minister: if the Government are to propose more local government reforms, they would do well to read material coming from bodies such as the Local Government Information Unit, which produced a good document called "Commission on Local Governance" to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) contributed. It made far-ranging proposals that had cross-party support in local government and which really would have represented major change with respect to relations between central Government and local government.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am becoming a little weary of the Liberal Democrats proposing their local income tax system without putting a figure on it every time we have such a debate. Will the hon. Gentleman put a figure on the average local income tax he reckons would be needed to replace council tax; and what redistribution system would he adopt to redistribute money raised from the richer areas to the poorer?

Edward Davey: We will certainly do that in due course, but if I went down that road tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me totally out of order. In terms of getting weary of other people's speeches, the incoherence and inconsistency that we have had to endure from Conservative Front Benchers throughout the Bill's passage has been particularly tiresome.
	My next concern is the lack of debate in Committee and on Report on key aspects, particularly the trading and charging proposals in clauses 93 to 100. While the Government must take some blame for the lack of debate due to the various programme motions, the Conservatives should share the blame. Those who bother to read the reports of proceedings in Standing Committee will see how much time that Conservative Front Benchers wasted on trivial points, preventing us from dealing with the more serious issues.
	The Government have serious questions to answer with respect to the trading and charging clauses. For example, they have used one model for local authorities to operate new powers to trade and charge—the company model. That might be restrictive, as local authorities could undertake many types of trading, which would effectively be at the very margins of their activities and also be unsuitable for setting up a legal structure as detailed as a company.

Nick Raynsford: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the arrangement for discretionary charges, which will also be available under the Bill, covers those marginal circumstances. In response to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold involving a level playing field in relation to private sector firms that might trade in the same area, it is important for local authority trading to be on a proper basis, which is why we propose the company structure.

Edward Davey: The Minister may have made an important point for those people who will read the report of our debate, which shows why we needed more time to discuss those particular clauses. The understanding of many people in local government, having read the Bill, is that the powers under clause 93 with respect to charging link to powers in clause 95 with respect to trading. If he is saying that local authorities could get involved with and charge for some marginal activities without setting up a company structure, that is welcome clarification. We need more time—possibly an Adjournment debate or a debate elsewhere—to explore other aspects of those clauses. Perhaps some fears held by people in local authorities could be put to rest.
	Let me make one other observation, which represents a real concern for local authorities. It involves how the comprehensive performance assessment categories have been tied to freedoms in the Bill, especially with respect to trading. The concern is that a local authority could set up a company to trade, working in partnership with the private sector and the other partners, only for a future assessment under the CPA framework to change its category. That would prevent it from trading, because different freedoms and flexibility would apply and old freedoms would be taken away. If that is to be the position in law, it will create great uncertainty when a company to trade or a partnership is established. That could prevent those partnerships and that trading from happening in the first place.

Nick Raynsford: The Audit Commission will consult in the near future on proposals for the refreshment of CPA. We have been discussing with the Audit Commission a mechanism to ensure that, if there is a change in the category applicable to a local authority, there should be appropriate transitional arrangements, so that there is no immediate disruption of arrangements such as he has identified. There may be a period of grace for the authority to improve its performance, so that it can continue to exercise those responsibilities.

Edward Davey: The Minister was trying to be helpful, but unfortunately he was not helpful enough. I understood that that was what the Government were consulting on, but it may not be sufficient, especially if the local authority wants to set up a robust trading arrangement with the private sector involving, for example, private investment capital. If there is the danger of an Audit Commission review, even with a period of grace, the possibility of ending the trading arrangement could prevent the private capital from being advanced in the first place. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that issue. We tabled new clauses to deal with that problem, but unfortunately we were not able to debate them. I hope that the Minister will give that point particular attention, and will accept our amendments in the other place.
	I have dealt with our concerns about the mistakes in the Bill, the omissions and the lack of debate on key clauses, especially on trading and charging. In my concluding remarks, I want to focus on the provisions on which we agree with the Government, because they are the reason why we will support the Government in the Lobby tonight. The prudential borrowing regime that the Bill puts in place is an issue on which Liberal Democrats have campaigned for many years. Although it is not perfect, it is a major step forward and deserves the support of both sides of the House.
	Business improvement districts represent a real opportunity for local authorities to work with business, and for businesses to set the agenda and set the pace of improvements in our town centres. I was proud to be at the launch of Kingston First only two weeks ago. Kingston town centre management is working with the London Development Agency and the local private sector. Kingston may be one of the first town centres to benefit from this legislation, so people in our area particularly welcome that provision.
	We agree with the Government over their council tax reforms. As the Minister will know, we want to go a lot further, but these are steps in the right direction to make an appallingly unfair tax slightly less unfair.
	Finally, we have made sure that section 28 will be removed from the statute books. That is a real step forward, and it had huge support in the Lobby. It is to be regretted that the Leader of the Conservative Opposition decided that he would change his position yet again. He has previously been on the record implying that it was now time that section 28 was removed from the statute book. He has now done another volte-face, and he has flip-flopped and gone the other way. The Conservative party is incredibly divided on this and many other issues. Only 77 Conservative Members of Parliament were in the Lobby with the Leader of the Conservative Opposition, which shows that he was unable to take even half the members of his parliamentary party with him.
	The Bill has much to commend it, and the House should give it a Third Reading. I hope that the other place will make the amendments that the Liberal Democrats tried to make, but we were unfortunately unable to persuade the Government of their merits.

Brian Iddon: This is a complex Bill. We sat for 14 two-and-a-half-hour sittings, one of which was extended. I listened to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) complain about the lack of time, but much of that was due to the fact that the Opposition laboured some of the points, especially in the early stages of the Committee. In my view, they only have themselves to blame for not having the time to discuss some of the clauses that he complained about. Any hon. Member who is any doubt about the complexity of the Bill should have a look at clause 64. I still cannot get my head around the algebra for calculating the non-domestic rate multiplier. I have to confess, as a member of the Committee, that there are similar clauses that I still do not understand.
	Local authorities have welcomed, and will welcome, the ability to borrow, the ability to trade, the relaxation in business rates, the introduction of improvement districts, and even, dare I say it, the controversial matter that we are discussing—the relaxation in local controls on fire brigades. I understand that it is a difficult time to announce the latter measure, given what is going on, but I am sure that in the end it will be welcome.
	I want particularly to mention the ability to trade. As my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, I was chairman of housing in Bolton for 10 years, and we had a great deal of trouble buying double glazing from private firms. For example, the windows fell out because they were not secured properly, and burglars could easily get in. I could give a long catalogue of our troubles with private firms selling us double glazing and ripping us off into the bargain. Many householders also suffered from that. We therefore decided to set up our own double glazing production unit, which was greatly welcomed by tenants. Former tenants who had bought their houses wanted to buy the same double glazing product from us, but we were restricted from selling it to them by the Government who were previously in control. The ability to trade on a level playing field—not to have any advantages, but to trade equally with the private sector—has never existed before, and the independence that it offers to local authorities is very welcome. I assure hon. Members that Bolton's double glazing product would knock the spots off any private sector product. My colleagues in local authorities would say that it does not go far enough, but it is a huge step in the right direction.
	I turn to housing finance. In Committee we had a big wrangle—the hon. Member for Cotswold mentioned it again tonight—about the pooling of capital receipts in housing. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise the difficulties that we face in the north. He criticised, as he criticised in Committee, the pooling of capital receipts in order to spend them where they are most needed. Houses in the south and south-east of England, especially here in London, are sold for huge amounts of money. In the north, we cannot get such high capital receipts. And what do Conservative Members want to spend them on? Keeping their council taxes down. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the conditions in which people in the north live—in council houses and in private sector houses—are so bad that he should come and have a look at them. I am in favour of pooling capital receipts and spending them on housing, not on keeping council taxes down in the south and south-east of England.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he criticised me. He knows full well that the rules prevent capital receipts from housing being used to subsidise council tax—that simply cannot happen. The other factor is that if one takes money away from councils that have sold their housing, they will not be able to build any more houses, so people in those local authorities will suffer.

Brian Iddon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are ways and means of spending capital receipts—I have not got time to go into them. He knows the ways around the rules as well as I do.
	I very much welcome the separation of housing benefit from the housing revenue account, which makes the housing revenue account completely transparent for the first time. When I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister in Committee whether that was the end of the double whammy whereby council house tenants pay for the housing benefit of their neighbours through council house rents, then, like the rest of us, pay again through the taxation system, he agreed that it was.
	I welcome the end of section 28. I listened to the debate in Committee and I have listened to it again tonight. People have become passionate for the right reasons. We have spent an awful lot of time on this—and, to be frank, I wonder whether it was worth while spending so much time on it. We just wanted a quick end to section 28. It has not happened quickly; indeed, it has not happened yet. There will, of course, be a battle in the other place.
	I do not understand the Conservative Opposition's amendments this evening. They have been criticising the Government for bureaucracy in local government and education, yet, if one considers their amendments closely, one sees that they would increase bureaucracy. They wanted ballots—albeit on a small number of occasions—and they wanted schools to report on various things. They have to get their act ready. Either they want a reduction in bureaucracy or they want the increase in bureaucracy that they have been arguing for this evening.
	I congratulate the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), on the hard work that they have done. In the early Committee stages, I saw the Minister under considerable pressure for the obvious reason that he had other matters to deal with. On one occasion at least, I wondered how much sleep he had had. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend.

Angela Watkinson: I was not a member of the Committee that worked on this Bill but I have listened carefully throughout the Report stage and have heard some informed and constructive contributions. I want to say how bitterly disappointed I am about the result of the vote on section 28. The House has made a serious mistake.
	Section 28 was repealed in Scotland about two years ago. The results of that should have served as a valuable lesson to this House. Some of the lesson plans and publications that I have seen—which are intended for education in schools and which will become permissible for use should the Bill complete its passage through Parliament—have shocked me by their explicit content. This is not education; it is information—and far more information than is necessary or beneficial for young minds. I have learned things that I had reached this great age without knowing or needing to know; indeed, I would be far happier not knowing them. Pupils need protection from graphic descriptions and illustrations of inappropriate sexual information in publications that could encourage experimentation.
	Several hon. Members have justified the repeal of section 28 by reference to homophobic bullying. I am a governor of two secondary schools. They have good policies on bullying, as most schools now do. Those policies are not on specific types of bullying and they are not for all sorts of bullying except homophobic bullying. Homophobic bullying is perfectly adequately covered by the policies, along with every other sort of bullying. I therefore do not see that the repeal of section 28 can be justified on bullying grounds.
	Letters that I have received have told me that the majority of parents want to keep section 28. It gave them confidence and it curbed the content of teaching materials and publications, ensuring that vulnerable, young and immature—by their very nature—people are not influenced, in their formative years, into experimenting with what can be presented to them as a lifestyle choice.
	Over the years, we have come a long way from the days when homosexuals were commonly subjected to violent assault. Great efforts have been made to change public attitudes from hostility to tolerance and acceptance. So successfully has that been done that an adult's sexual preference is no longer a matter for comment or even interest. However, we have a duty to protect school pupils and young people in youth organisations from the active promotion of homosexuality, which is quite a separate thing from tolerance and acceptance. There is a world of difference between, on the one hand, tolerance and acceptance, which should be encouraged, and, on the other hand, approval, which is a matter of personal judgment, and promotion, which is not only unjustified but a serious encroachment into an area of child development that more properly rests in parental responsibility. The Government have failed in that important duty to protect schoolchildren.
	I am also concerned about the repeal of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. I do not have a declarable interest, but one of my daughters is a firefighter in the London fire brigade, as is my son-in-law who is married to another daughter. The connection means that I am regularly contacted by serving firefighters who want to funnel their views through me. They are extremely worried about the effect that the risk review could have on firefighters. It could even lead to the closure of fire stations. Indeed, I held a meeting with my local chief fire officer on that subject.
	Upminster does not have the benefit of a fire station. It has to rely on Romford, Hornchurch and Wennington. In an e-mail to me, a serving firefighter said:
	"It is not only Section 19 which is a worry, but some of the other recommendations in the Bain report . . . regarding fire cover. Some of these included reducing fire cover at night, when although there are less fires there are more deaths due to these fires . . . There are high possibilities that Romford will be made a 1 appliance station, and that Hornchurch or Wennington will be made Day Manning",
	which is full cover during the daytime only. It went on to say:
	"Bain also spoke about having retained (part-time) firefighters working with wholetime",
	which is also a possibility for Hornchurch and Romford. The e-mail then stated:
	"In fact there are numerous permutations, and they all lead to reduced fire cover, greater chance of death, and delayed attendance times."
	I understand that the density of building in Upminster and the fact that it has had a fairly stable population over a long period mean that there should be no significant change in fire cover in the area. I want to be reassured about that so that I can pass that on to the many firefighters who contact me.

Bob Blizzard: Clause 117 deals with two of the greatest problems that confront this country: litter and dog fouling. Any hon. Member who thinks that they are not that important is not knocking on enough doors. Although people are exercised about the international situation at the moment, week in, week out, month in, month out, they talk about litter and dog fouling because they are angry about it. I am delighted that the clause addresses that. The measure to allow councils to keep the revenue that they raise from fixed penalty fines by enforcing the litter laws already on the statute book is long overdue. I first proposed the idea at 5 am in this Chamber in 1999 and have since introduced two private Member's Bills to that effect, one of which is timetabled for discussion on 4 April. I hope, however, that the Government's Bill will make my Bill unnecessary.
	I want to give local authorities the means to enforce the law. We know that the laws are not enforced. Only about 50 of 450 authorities employ litter wardens and only about £70,000 a year goes to the central Exchequer from litter fines. Members would have to roam far and wide in their constituencies before finding someone who has been fined. In recent months, authorities have carried out pilot schemes and those that have taken their scheme seriously have had great success.
	I hope that the Government will issue guidance to local authorities so that they take their new responsibilities seriously. By enforcing the laws, we will make the polluter pay. Taxpayers pay £450 million a year in a culture that allows people to drop litter, to walk around in it, to pay a lot of money to have it cleared up and then to moan when it has not been cleared up properly. I hope that when the Bill passes its Commons stage tonight and goes to another place, it will go a long way towards finally ridding the country of a nuisance with which people are fed up, but which nobody has tackled. I congratulate the Government on bringing the measure, long promised, to the statute book.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 136.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Climate Change Levy

That the draft Climate Change Levy (Use as Fuel) (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

Social Security

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	Division deferred till Wednesday 12 March, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].

Supreme Court of England and Wales

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

Industrial Development

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
	That the draft Financial Assistance for Industry (Increase of Limit) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

DRAFT CORRUPTION BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
	That the Lords Message of 12th February relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Corruption Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be now considered.
	That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution relating to the said Joint Committee.
	That a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider any such draft Corruption Bill.
	That the Committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and
	That Vera Baird, Mr Edward Garnier, Mr John MacDougall, Mr Mark Oaten, Mr Richard Shepherd, Mr Paul Stinchcombe and Dr Desmond Turner be members of the Committee.—[Derek Twigg.]

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 117 (Standing Committee on Regional Affairs),
	That—
	(1) the matter of progress in developing the role of the Government Offices in the Regions (GOs), being a matter relating to regional affairs in England, be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs;
	(2) the Committee do meet at a quarter-past Two o'clock on Thursday 3rd April at Westminster to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
	(3) the proceedings at the meeting be brought to a conclusion at a quarter-past Five o'clock.—[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Ordered,
	That Phil Sawford be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Alan Simpson be added.—[Keith Hill.]

PETITION
	 — 
	BAE Systems (Brough)

David Davis: This petition is from the work force at BAE Systems, Brough, where the Hawk aircraft is manufactured. They have faced savage job losses in the past few years, and again face another 400 to 450 redundancies in the coming few months, partly as a result of delays in the ordering of the aircraft by the Ministry of Defence. The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's Government do all in its power to ensure that negotiations concerning the future of BAE Systems Brough, and the manufacture of Hawk aircraft, are resolved as quickly as possible, so as to ensure the continued viability of the facility and the protection of their jobs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

POST OFFICES (SUTTON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]

Paul Burstow: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the future of post offices in my constituency and in the borough of Sutton. I hope that, in this brief debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and have the opportunity to make one or two points about post offices in his constituency.
	When I last raised the issue in an Adjournment debate just over two and a half years ago, the threat hanging over the sub-post office network in my constituency was just that—a threat. Today, the threat is turning into a reality. Post offices are closing in my constituency. The closures are piecemeal and cloaked in secrecy. My constituents have been left with the strong impression that the Post Office is paying lip service to consultation and just going through the motions when it comes to closing post offices.
	During my previous Adjournment debate on the matter, I pointed out that, based on parliamentary answers, the local impact of
	"the switch from pension book to credit transfer will mean that at least one in three of the 16 sub-post offices in my constituency will be under threat, because more than 40 per cent. of their business comes from work for the Benefits Agency."—[Official Report, 5 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 134.]
	Five sub-post offices are therefore at risk of closure in the borough of Sutton in my constituency. Since the previous debate on the subject, two sub-post offices have closed and the future of another is in question. Yet another is due for the chop through a formal consultation process.
	Let me outline what has happened in the past year. On 23 July, Mr. Drew McBride of the Post Office national consultation team wrote to tell me of the plan to close the Collingwood road sub-post office in my constituency. Residents and I had until 23 August to respond. I hope that the Minister agrees that consulting over the summer, when many people are on holiday and elsewhere, is poor practice. It denies people the opportunity to have their say. In his letter, Mr. McBride pointed out that there were three post offices in a half a mile radius of the Collingwood road branch: Sutton post office in the St. Nicholas centre; Oldfields road post office on the Sutton bypass, and the Grove road post office.
	It is as if Mr. McBride and his team did no more than draw a circle on a map. He did not bother to factor in simple facts, such as half a mile up a hill being different from the same distance on the flat. Getting to the Grove road post office necessitates such a climb. He also neglected to consider the fact that one of the alternative post offices was on the other side of a busy dual carriageway. Despite the short notice of the consultation and the holiday period, more than 100 people signed the petition calling for the Collingwood road branch to remain open. The residents received the all-party backing of the local authority.
	Insult was added to injury when the closing date for consultation was set at 23 August. Mr. McBride wrote on 30 August to tell me that the closure would go ahead on 23 September. The closure appears to have been pre-planned, pre-programmed and pre-determined. It took Mr. McBride only seven days to weigh up and reject the representations of the local community, the council and me.
	The closure programme progresses. On 24 February, Mr. McBride wrote to tell me about the proposed closure of the Oldfields road post office. However, six months ago, he wrote:
	"Of course, customers have a choice as to the Post Office branch they wish to use in the future. However, I believe that the nearest, most convenient branches are located at High Street, Sutton and Oldfields Road."
	Words fail me. The Post Office offers the prospect of a specific post office only to snatch it away from constituents.
	Such behaviour prompts the question, "Which post office will close next?" It is time for the Post Office to be much more open and honest about its plans. Will the Minister supply a list of the post offices that are earmarked for closure in the borough of Sutton so that we can scrutinise the process more carefully?
	I hope that the Minister will undertake to ensure that the Post Office consultation team apologises to the community around the former Collingwood road post office for misleading it about the possibility of using the Oldfields road post office. People had it for only six months. In his letter, Mr. McBride points out that the nearest post offices are Sutton post office in the St. Nicholas centre, which is 7.7 miles away from the Oldfields road branch, and Gander Green lane post office, which is 0.4 miles away.
	The Post Office is supposed to ensure that 95 per cent. of its customers live within half a mile of the nearest post office. That is no longer the case for many residents in Collingwood road or on the Cheam Park Farm estate. The piecemeal closures will result in growing gaps in the network. The elderly, the disabled and families who rely on post office services will suffer. Simply drawing circles on maps, with no local knowledge, will not benefit people.
	Will the Minister ensure a proper mechanism to take account of the local factors that I have outlined? One driver for closures is loss of business due to plans for electronic transfer of benefits and pensions into bank accounts. The thrust of the information campaign surrounding the change downplays the option of the Post Office card accounts.
	The implementation of such accounts is even more worrying. It appears as if they have been set up to fail. Why will not the trials of the new computer system finish until five days before the system is due to go live? Where is the margin for error? What are the contingency arrangements if the IT fails? If it works, will customers be able to use it?
	During the Christmas Adjournment debate, I raised several anxieties about the Post Office card account on behalf of my local Age Concern. In a letter to Postwatch, Marion Harper, the chief officer of Sutton Age Concern, wrote:
	"We are very concerned about the entire concept of changes to pension collection, but we would welcome an explanation as to how the new system will affect older people with mobility problems, particularly arthritis, and older people who are visually impaired or blind."
	Postwatch's reply was very disturbing. Despite pressing the Department for Work and Pensions for an answer, it remained unclear how collections of benefits or pensions would happen where a person did not have a regular carer or helper and was taken ill suddenly. Giving out the PIN would be considered a breach of the terms and conditions of their account, so they will go without their pension.
	How will that problem be dealt with? When I asked Pensions Agency staff that question during a recent meeting of the Sutton Seniors Forum, they were unable to offer an answer. Can the Minister tell us tonight how people who become ill will be able to access their pension using a card account? When I raised those matters in the Christmas Adjournment debate, I was told that I would receive a response in writing from the Ministers who are responsible. To date, I have not received that response and I hope that we can obtain some answers tonight or get something in writing as soon as possible.
	Local post offices play a vital role in our community. They are one of the building blocks of our economic vitality and shopping centres. On the basis of my experience of the closure programme in my area so far, I have no confidence whatever that the Post Office is really listening to the concerns of local authorities, residents or MPs in its consultation. I hope that the Minister will take that on board and make a change in that process for the future.

Tom Brake: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate.
	Post offices are a lifeline in many rural communities, but their value to urban and suburban communities should not be underestimated either. When it seemed that Roundshaw post office was going to close, local people, many of whom do not have access to a car, were distraught. Fortunately, that particular battle has been won, as a very sensible solution was arrived at involving the post office sharing space with a new supermarket.
	I am glad that we won that battle, but what alarms me is that there are other battles to be fought regarding future local post office closures and we do not know where the enemy lines are or what the rules of engagement are. We hear rumours that a particular post office may be under threat of closure, but as the Post Office is not forthcoming with its planned programme of closures, such rumours cannot be disproved or confirmed.
	That is why I shall ask the Minister just one thing—to guarantee that there will be no more post office closures in the borough until a meaningful consultation process is put in place that will allow residents to put their case in a meaningful way. That is the guarantee that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend are seeking and that I hope that the Minister can deliver.

Stephen Timms: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this debate. I know that he is assiduous in his attention to issues that are relevant to elderly people in particular, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) have made during this short debate.
	Both hon. Members set out the concerns of their constituents about proposals in their area. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the proposed closure of Oldfields road post office. That proposal is indeed part of the Post Office's programme for restructuring the urban post office network. I understand, however, that the proposal for that particular office has been suspended to enable Post Office Ltd. to recheck some of the data relating to it. Once that has been done, it is envisaged that the consultation will start again from scratch. It is helpful that I can point to that fact, which makes it clear that, contrary to what he said, the process is not on tram lines, but is being taken forward very carefully and in a very thoughtful way in order to ensure that the integrity of the post office network, and access to it in every part of the country, are maintained.

Paul Burstow: On the notification of the suspension of the consultation process, can the Minister indicate when the decision was made?

Stephen Timms: I am afraid that I do not know exactly when the decision was made. I understand that the data on the closure that have been published and put into the public domain were correct and accurate, but that some of the information supplied to Postwatch was not. The Post Office took the view that it should do the right thing, check the data and then go right back to the start of the consultation process, which helpfully, from my point of view, demonstrates that the process will be fair and proper, as it should be.
	The rationalisation and modernisation of the urban network is part of the process of maintaining a viable nationwide network of post offices. We need to go through that process if we are to maintain a good level of accessibility in every part of the country and provide a wider range of better quality services to post office customers, as we must. Both hon. Members complained about the proposed closures, but they did not suggest alternative closures. For the reasons that I am about to set out, it is essential to reduce the number of post offices.
	It was a key recommendation of the performance and innovation unit's report about the future of the post office network, which was broadly supported by Liberal Democrat Members, that if the Post Office decided that fewer offices were needed in some urban areas, the Government should consider providing financial assistance to the Post Office to ensure that the sub-postmasters affected could be adequately compensated for the loss of value of their business.
	Last November, following parliamentary approval of the funding, Post Office Ltd. initiated its programme. I should emphasise that the development of closure proposals, the consultation process and subsequent decisions on closure are operational matters for Post Office Ltd. rather than for the Government. However, it is important that the process be undertaken properly and thoughtfully, and, in particular, that the consultation should be well managed.
	It is important to understand why the post office network in urban areas needs restructuring and why its income has declined. The reasons go back over 20 years. Past under-investment is certainly one factor, but greater mobility and changes in shopping and financial habits have also sharply reduced customer numbers. Of course the Post Office is not alone in having had to deal with such changes; other networks, such as those of the retail banks, have been scaled back as well. Post office networks in other countries have been through similar changes; for example, I understand that in Germany, to achieve consistent profitability, the number of post office branches was reduced from 30,000, a much higher number than in the UK, to 13,000, significantly lower than the current UK number. Many other countries have embarked on a similar process.
	Some factors have had a particularly big impact in the UK. Post office income here has been heavily dependent on benefit payments, but over 42 per cent. of benefit recipients now access their benefit payments via bank accounts, compared with only 26 per cent. in 1996. That substantial reduction results from people changing the way in which they want to keep their money.
	If we compare the 2001–02 financial year with that of five years previously, we find that the number of retirement pensions and widows benefits paid by order books and giros had dropped by more than 1 million, from just over 6 million to fewer than 5 million, even though the total number of pension recipients went up by more than 1 million. Child benefit payments made in that way dropped from just under 5 million to fewer than 4 million. Payments of incapacity benefit at post offices fell even more dramatically, from more than 2.5 million to fewer than 1 million. All that was the result of decisions made by benefit recipients.

Paul Burstow: Will the Minister consider the principal concern that my hon. Friend and I have put to him tonight—the piecemeal nature of the process that we have seen in our borough so far, which means that we are unable to see the totality of the plans and therefore to comment on them intelligently on behalf of our constituents? The plans proposed closing the Collingwood road branch and cited Oldfields road as being available, but now that is closing as well.

Stephen Timms: I shall certainly address that issue. It is important, however, that I set out for the House why the process is necessary, and, indeed, in the interests of our communities and of the post office network.
	The number of people receiving their benefits at the post office has sharply fallen. The total number of people receiving jobseeker's allowance has fallen, which is good news, but that has reduced post office income. Girobank transactions at post offices fell by 37 per cent. between March 1997 and March 2002. National Savings transactions fell by 24 per cent., telephone bill payments by 25 per cent. and postal orders by 13 per cent. Those reductions have been only modestly offset by increases in the number of transactions for motor vehicle licences, lottery sales and bureau de change services.
	The consequence is that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and many urban areas throughout the country, there is now too little business for the number of post offices. The Post Office has the biggest retail network of any organisation in Europe, with 50 per cent. more branches than all the UK banks put together. More than 1,000 of the 9,000 urban sub-post offices have at least 10 other post offices within a mile. The volume of business through the network is simply no longer sufficient to support so dense a network.
	The Post Office programme is intended to restore the urban network to commercial viability, which all of us want to achieve. It aims to restore the confidence of the sub-postmasters, making it possible to attract much needed new investment. Earlier this evening, with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I met a deputation from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. The federation has recognised and made it clear that
	"There is an urgent need for re-structuring . . . Tough decisions must be made in order to ensure a viable network for the future to create bigger, better and brighter post offices."
	I agree.
	The programme relates only to the urban network. Our commitment to ending avoidable closures in the rural network remains, and in the last quarter of last year the net closure figure for rural offices nationally was nil—the first time that anyone can remember there not being a reduction in numbers. However, Post Office officials will progressively visit every urban area to make a careful study of the configuration of the offices and of local factors such as public transport availability, demographics and geography in order to decide whether a particular office that the postmaster wishes to close can be allowed to do so.

Tom Brake: To what degree does the Minister think elected Members, councillors and the local community should be involved in the formulation of those decisions?

Stephen Timms: I will come to that precise point, if the hon. Gentleman bears with me. It is a requirement of the process that the Post Office has established that all the parties he mentions be consulted—indeed, Members of Parliament will be written to at the start of the consultation process. It is important that that takes place.
	Initially, the programme is to focus primarily on smaller urban offices where sub-postmasters are under the greatest pressure. Many sub-postmasters want to close their business and receive fair compensation, as the package offers. That is our starting point. I am almost certain that in the constituency cases that the hon. Gentlemen highlighted, the starting point of the process has been that the postmasters have wanted to close their office.
	The Government will meet the costs of compensation to a total of £180 million over the next three years. We are providing a further £30 million for modernising and adapting the offices that remain. The key to improving standards in the remaining offices will be the increased volume of business that they can expect, but the grants of up to £10,000 for each office expecting to take on a significant number of additional customers—which must be matched by the same sum from the postmaster—will also provide an important boost. This is the first time that the Government have undertaken a programme of investment in urban sub-post offices. The measure is additional to the PIU report recommendations, which in general were warmly welcomed.
	As part of the package, the Post Office will generally require the receiving offices to improve their facilities and extend their opening hours. To an increasing extent, we will be able to expect sub-post offices to maintain the same hours as the associated retail businesses, and to improve their service to customers. Thus the quality of service that people can expect from their local post office will be improved.
	The properly managed programme on which the Post Office has embarked is far preferable to the alternative of unmanaged closures resulting from falling income, which would cause much greater disruption to customers. At the end of the programme, more than 95 per cent. of people living in urban areas will still be within a mile of a post office. I think that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned half a mile, but one mile is the measurement used—and the majority will still be within half a mile.
	The hon. Gentleman has talked about the other post offices close to Oldfields road. The programme that is being taken forward will follow the code of practice agreed between Consignia and the consumer watchdog, Postwatch. For every proposed closure, merger or relocation, there will be an independent consultation process lasting at least a calendar month, which will be extended to allow for Bank holidays. The consultation will be conducted by Post Office Ltd., but will closely involve Postwatch. To pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), I can add that it will include the local Member of Parliament, who will be written to at the beginning of the process. To ensure that the needs of all customers, including the elderly, disabled people, those on low incomes and others, have been properly considered, Post Office Ltd. will, in developing its proposals, take account of factors such as accessibility, viability of the remaining post offices, transport links—where the bus stops are—opening hours and numbers of counter positions.
	The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked me whether I could provide the entire list of post offices that are being considered for closure. I cannot do that because there is no predetermined list of post offices that will be considered. No arithmetical formula is being applied to determine the number of closures in an area. The closures in an area will be determined by the present density of offices in close proximity to one another, current and future business volumes, the preferences of individual sub-postmasters—an important consideration—and the public consultation process, which will take place in respect of every proposal, whether it is for closure, merger or relocation.
	In some cases, a sub-postmaster may have indicated a wish to close. However, taking account of the position and prospects of neighbouring offices, it will be concluded that closure of that particular office is not acceptable. If the sub-postmaster still wishes to leave, that will need to be on the basis of a commercial sale of the business. One of the consequences of the programme should be a revival of the commercial market for sub-post offices, which has declined in recent years.
	Proposals on the future of any individual office will not be taken in isolation but will be drawn up in the context of other offices nearby. The Post Office wants to continue to provide services in convenient locations readily accessible to its customers, which will have the capacity to deal with future levels of demand and will provide improvements. Improving the quality of what is provided at local post offices is an important objective of the programme.
	At the start of the programme—the stage that we are in at the moment—all the closures will be in response to requests from those running sub-post offices. Towards the end of the three-year programme there may need to be a small number of involuntary but compensated closures to finalise the shape of the urban network. We are not at that stage yet.
	More than 1,800 urban sub-post offices in the UK are in the 10 per cent. most disadvantaged wards in the indices of deprivation 2000. I want to make it clear that, other than in exceptional circumstances, the scope of the urban reinvention programme will not extend to any post office in one of those deprived urban areas that are more than half a mile from the next post office. They are often the last retail outlet of any sort in the area. We want to improve and sustain post offices in deprived urban districts by means of a separate scheme to provide funding for investment and improvement to post office branches that are at risk of closure.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister announced at the end of last year the details of a £15 million scheme for England to support core post office services and the development of associated retail facilities in those areas. The compensation being paid under the Post Office's programme will be based on terms agreed between Post Office Ltd. and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. The payment will be equivalent to 28 months of the remuneration of an outgoing sub-postmaster, but based on the best annual remuneration for a financial year since 1999. That is based on long-standing arrangements through the joint discretionary fund. Payments are subject to certain conditions, such as a requirement that sub-postmasters at closing branches offer active support for customers transferring to surrounding branches that remain open.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the move to automated credit transfer of benefit payments. I expect that to start on schedule in April, as we always said it would. Over two years, there will be a carefully managed programme of transition from current arrangements, which are essentially based on ration books, to a system based entirely on ACT for benefit payments. We are committed to making sure that people will continue to be able to collect their benefits in cash from the post office if they wish. There will be post office access to a range of bank accounts. Customers will have three account options when deciding how they want to be paid: an existing standard bank or building society account if that account is with one of the banks or building societies that has a commercial agreement with the Post Office; a bank or building society basic account for those who are new to banking and just want to pay money in, get cash out, and perhaps pay bills automatically; and the Post Office card account, which is a much simpler account just for the receipt of benefit and pension and tax credit payments. The card account is more limited than the others, but is undoubtedly the account of choice for a significant number of benefit recipients.
	Good progress continues to be made on universal banking services, which are on track, as I said, for delivery in April. An investment of £0.5 billion has been required from the Government to put in place the technology platform to support universal banking. On that platform, the Post Office will be able to build a range of banking services which, we hope, will attract many new customers to their local post office, and so build for sub-postmasters, the people running post offices, and Post Office Ltd., the company running the post office network, a successful and attractive commercial future that will assure the long-term well-being of post offices. In the long term, because of the Government's substantial investment in improving the technology, there is a good future, but we need to make short-term changes to ensure that the configuration of post offices in urban areas is commensurate with current business levels.

Paul Burstow: Could the Minister ensure after today's debate that I get a reply to the points that I made in the Christmas Adjournment debate on the introduction of PIN numbers and their use when someone is ill?

Stephen Timms: I apologise for the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not received a letter yet, and shall certainly make sure that he receives one from me addressing the points that he made in that debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.